SURINDER SINGH, J.

(1.) Leave to appeal is sought in this appeal by the applicant-appellant against the acquittal of the respondents by the learned trial Court in a private complaint filed by the appellant herein, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 451, 323 and 384 Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Heard and gone through the file of the learned trial Court.

(3.) Precisely, the case of the complainant in the complaint has been that he was running business of watches, clocks and toys etc. in a shop. Respondents, in 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes the evening of 15.11.2006, hatched the conspiracy against him, capsized the counter of his shop, threw his goods here and there on the road and was given beatings. Respondent No. 3 is alleged to have forcibly removed Rs.700/- from the chest of his counter, destroyed the watches and other articles, caused a loss to him to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. He along with his wife was rescued by Nitpal Singh and Panch Gurdial Singh. They were threatened with dire consequences by the respondents.

(4.) The matter was reported to the police next day but he was directed to revisit the police Station on 20.11.2006. When he went there on 20.11.2006, he was again told to come on 1.12.2006 along with his witnesses and thereafter on 4.12.2006. But police did not take any action thus, he filed the complaint.

(5.) Preliminary evidence was examined. The court took the cognizance of the offences under the aforesaid Sections. Respondents were summoned and put on trial. Notice of accusation was put to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(6.) To prove its case, complainant examined himself and also produced his wife as witness. Despite repeated opportunities for more than a year, he failed to produce the evidence.

(7.) Despite last opportunity, vide order dated 12.3.2009, the evidence was closed and his application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also dismissed and on finally hearing the arguments on merits, respondents were acquitted, as aforesaid.

(8.) It is pertinent to note that despite the repeated opportunities, as stated above, the appellant failed to adduce the evidence for more than a year. Too much latitude was given by the learned trial Court to the complainant for adducing his evidence for no cogent reasons. Ultimately, he examined himself and his wife on 12.3.2009 as aforesaid and no other independent witness. It is admitted that Rudar Dutt respondent had his shop adjacent to the shop of the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant has been throwing the waste of eggs towards his shop and in turn Rudar Dutt asked him to make suitable arrangements to dispose of rubbish and egg shells, then an application was filed by him against the complainant in the Gram Panchayat, regarding which the complainant expressed his ignorance. Even perusal of their statements shows that the controversy was something else as projected by him in the complainant. It came in his cross examination that one person belonging to Bihar had eaten-up his eggs from the shop and did not make any payment. He was caught-hold by the complainant from the arms and demanded money. It appears that the respondents had intervened and that happened on the day of alleged incident. Further, he also stated when examined in the Court that about 20 shops-keepers had gathered in his shop at the time of the alleged incident. The Police Station is at a distance of 5 minutes walk but he did not report the matter to the police rather stated that he was stopped by the Pradhan as the respondents have been his tenants. Similar is the statement of his wife.

(9.) The circumstances which were found attendant against the respondents were also put to them. They substantiated the fact that the complainant had been throwing the eggs shell and the waste to the shop of Rudar Dutt which was objected to by them. They had also rescued Sandeep from the clutches of the complainant and that was the reason for foisting a false case upon them. Further with respect to the beatings, no medical examination was got conducted by the complainant. CW2 his wife also did not say which part of the body of her husband was hurt. It was also observed by the learned trial Court that on the da

y of alleged incident, it was Wednesday and not Sunday, as alleged by the complainant. Therefore, there was no question of closure of the shops in the vicinity, as stated by him for non-availability of witnesses. This completely belies his version. (10.) In view of the above circumstances and contradictory evidence, leave to appeal would be an abuse of process therefore, petition is rejected. In view of the rejection of the leave to appeal, the appeal has become infructuous.