GHOUSE MOHIUDDIN Vs. NAGOJI ACCUSED 1 TO 3

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Munsiff-Magistrate, Raichur, in case No. 12/1 of 1967, dismissing the complaint petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents for charges under Sections 325 and 107 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The petitioner filed a private complaint on 1.2.65 against the respondents. Respondent 1 was a typist in the Sadar Bazar Police Station at Raichur and respondent 2, a police constable at the same police station. Respondent 3 is a resident of Raichur Town. The petitioner in his complaint petition alleged that respondents 1 and 2 who were working in the Sadar Bazar Police Station sent for him at the instance of respondent 3, Parwatamma and assaulted him, caused bleeding injury to his nose by giving blows and that when he approached the doctor for treatment, he was directed by the Doctor to come through the police for treatment that the petitioner thereafter went to the Court for filing a complaint, that he was directed in the Court to approach the Superintendent of Police that when the petitioner approached the Superintendent of Police at Raichur, he directed the Circle Inspector to send the complainant to the Civil Hospital for treatment and that it was thereafter he was treated for the injuries suffered at the hands of Respondents 1 and 2 in the police station. As the petitioner had made allegations against respondents 1 and 2 who were attached to the police station, the police are stated to have not evinced any interest in investigating into the complaint lodged by the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed a private complaint against the three respondents before the Munsiff Magistrate, Raichur, on 1.2.1965.

(3.) The complaint filed by the petitioner was sent to the police for necessary investigation and report under Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After obtaining a number of adjournments the police gave a report to the effect that the allegations made by the petitioner in his complaint petition were false, that the petitioner had sustained the injury to his nose on account of dashing against a stone pillar during a quarrel when the police attempted to separate him. Thereafter, the petitioner undertook to prove his complaint. He requested the Court to summon for the connected papers with the police before orders were passed. The learned Magistrate made some attempts to get at the papers from the police and after a protracted correspondence, it was submitted to the Court that the connected papers were all missing and were not traceable. Thereafter, the case was posted for recording of evidence.