PYARE LAL Vs. SITA RAM MANGOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. I Pyare Lal is the father of petitioner No. 2 Jagdish Kumar Ghai and both of them have filed this revision petition under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') against the judgment dated 23rd September, 1985 passed by Shri Mahesh Chandra, then Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi, who had accepted the revision petition of respondent No. I and set aside the order of summoning dated 3rd June, 1985 passed by Shri O.P. Gupta, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, on the complaint of the petitioners.

(2.) The petitioners had filed a complaint against respondent Sita Ram Mamgoi, then S.H.O. of Police Station Lodhi Colony. New Delhi, and the Police Commissioner and the State under Sections 326/307/506/354/ 355/356/357 Indian Penal Code alleging that on 25th July, 1984 at about 5-30 P.M. tw police officers and a constable came to their residence and pressed them to go to the police station Lodhi Road and that respondent Sita Ram Mamgoi, S.H.O. had sent them to arrest them. The complainants were not aware of any offence against them. When they reached the aforcsaid police station, S.H.O. Sita Ram Mamgoi arrived there after sometime and started abusing and rebuking them and also gave them beatings as a result of which petitioner No. I Pyare Lal received injuries on his head, hand and leg and his left hand was also broken. Even though petitioner Pyare Lal requested respondent Sita Ram S.H.O. to get his medical examination done, the same was not got done by him.

(3.) The learned magistrate vide his order dated 3rd June, 1985, after recording the pre-summoning evidence of the petitioners/complainants came to the conclusion that there was sufficient grounds to proceed against accused No. I Sita Ram Mamgoi alone under Sections 325/506 Indian Penal Code and consequently he ordered that he be summoned for 9th July, 1985. Summoning order was not passed against the remaining accused persons viz. the Commissioner of Police and the State for the reason that the counsel for the complainants had conceded that there were no allegations against them.