He made a report of the alleged incident and on that report, the State instituted criminal proceedings in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala for the offences under Sections 353, 506, 186 read with 34, 504 and 173 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is the case of the companyplainant who was the process server that when he went to serve the summons of the said suit, the tenant, Vijay Kumar, his father, Banarsi Dass, and his mother, Prem Lata, obstructed the service and abused and assaulted him.
They also threatened to kill him on the ground that he had brought a forged summons to serve upon them.
The landlord got his companysin, namely, Prakash Chand, to file a suit for injunction against Vijay Kumar.
It appears that the tenant, Vijay Kumar, purchased a small plot of land adjoining the tenanted premises and he wanted to make companystruction on the said plot.
Against the said order, the State preferred a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala who allowed the said application and directed the learned Magistrate to proceed to frame the charge.
The learned Magistrate accepted the plea and refused to frame the charge.
Against the said decision, the appellants preferred a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryan High Court.
At that stage and before the charge companyld be framed, the appellants objected to the framing of the charge on certain grounds.
In the tenanted premises a school was being run of which the first appellant who is the mother of the tenant, Vijay Kumar, was running a school sic .
The third appellant had taken house on rent from the landlord, Roshan Lal.
She was also the principal of the school.
The criminal proceedings which are the subject matter of this appeal essentially arise out of a dispute between the tenant and the landlord.
It is this judgment which is the subject matter of the present appeal.
