NEMICHAND Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who were the accused before the lower court, have challenged in this revision petition the legality, correctness and propriety of the order dated 16-6-1978 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shorapur, in C. C. No. 464 of 1978, registering a case against the accused for offences punishable under Ss. 504 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and issuing summons to them. A few facts of the case are, that the complainant, who is the second respondent herein filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Shorapur, stating that the accused persons are related to each other and they are residing at Kabadgera in Shorapur town. On 14-6-1978 at about 11 a.m. it is alleged by the complainant, that he was repairing the 'katta' in front of his house bearing No. 1-13-43 situate at Kabadgera in Shorapur town and at that time the accused persons came there and objected for the repairs of the Katta', for which the complainant said that if they had got any objection, they may approach the Municipality of Shorapur and file objections. According to him for repairing the 'katta' permission is not necessary from the Municipality. At that time A-1 to A-3 dragged the complainant and assaulted him and the rest of the accused porsons abused him in vulgar language and as such he felt insulted and pain in the body due to beating. The accused persons assaulted and abused the complainant without any reason or provocation, and therefore, they have committed the aforesaid offences intentionally. The said complaint was filed on 16-6-1978 before the Magistrate.

(2.) The order sheet dated 16-6-1978 of the Court below reads thus : Complainant present. Presented the complaint through his counsel. Sworn the contents and made out a prima facie case against all the accused. Hence register a case under S. 504 and 323 I.P.C. and issue S, S. to the accused by 7/5.

(3.) Aggrieved by the above order, as already stated, the petitioners have approached this Court challenging its legality, correctness and propriety. Sri T. N. Raghupathy the learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the order dated 16-6-1978 passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing process against the accused persons are ilegal inasmuch as the learned Magistrate has not followed the mandatory provisions envisaged under S. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, he submitted that even if the allegations in the complaint are taken as a whole they do not indicate that the ingredients of the offences alleged are made out and as such the learned Magistrate ought to have rejected the complaint. His further submission was that the learned Magistrate has not examined the witnesses on behalf of the complainant present on that day and that therefore he has not conformed with the mandatory provisions of S. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore the entire proceedings are vitiated and the complaint should have been rejected. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the order taking cognizance is legal and is based upon the complaint as also the sworn statement of the complainant recorded by the learned Magistrate.