KAMARUDDIN @ BHAIJAN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.PC calling in question the validity, propriety and legality of the order dated 26-6-2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance under Section 190 of the Cr.PC for commission of offences under Sections 341, 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC and directed the Station House Officer, Police Station, Durg to furnish the copies of charge-sheet and the documents of Crime No. 257/2000.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to filing of this petition are that on 1 -4-2000 the non-applicant No. 2 lodged a report with the Police Station, Durg with the allegations that the accused persons, the petitioners herein, in furtherance of the common intention abused him with filthy language and beaten him with fists and slaps. In the report, he mentioned that the owners of Jyoti Opticals and Surana Videos are his tenants since last 5-6 years and by taking the illegal water connection they were running their business. Fifteen days prior to the incident, the Municipal Council, Durg disconnected the water connections of these persons and imposed the penalty of fine. When after making the efforts they could not get the water connection. Om Prakash Asrani with the intention to harass him sent three notices through his Advocate and today when at about 9:15 a.m. he was going out of his house then Bablu Asrani caught hold of him by his collar, while threatening he said that you have not connected the water connection and started beating with hands and fists. He called Pappu and Bhaijan and thereafter all the three started beating him, on account of that he is suffering from pain near left eye and throat. On receiving this report the police registered the case under Sections 341, 323 and 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC. After investigation, the police submitted the final report saying that there is a dispute between the parties regarding disconnection of the water connection, on account of that dispute the landlord has tried to convert that dispute in a criminal case. Since, there are no chances of success of the case and ingredients of the offence under Sections 341 and 294 of the IPC are not present, therefore, no cognizable offence has been committed, as such, the case is not fit for challan. Therefore, negative report is being submitted for acceptance.

(3.) On receiving this report, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after issuance of the notice to the complainant heard him on his objection and vide impugned order dated 26-6-2001 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after perusing the first information report, injury report, the statement of respondent No. 2 recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.PC and the statements of other witnesses namely, Mahesh Thakur, Chandrashekhar, Sharad Soni and Pavan Deshmukh reached the conclusion that prima facie offences under Sections 341 and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC are made out against the accused persons. Therefore, he took cognizance of those offences under Section 190 of the Cr.PC and directed to issue summons to secure their presence. At the same time a requisition was sent on the same day to the Police Station for furnishing the copies of documents and the final negative report. Aggrieved by this order, the State Government through Public Prosecutor preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge, Durg, which came to be decided by the Sessions Judge vide order dated 17th May, 2003 and the learned Sessions Judge reached the conclusion that the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate is legal and by passing the impugned order learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not committed any illegality, therefore, he dismissed the revision. Now, this petition has been preferred by the accused persons on 4-2-2004.