ASHOK KUMAR Vs. MARIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Ashok Kumar filed a private complaint against respondent Mariappan, who was formerly D. S. P., Kancheepuram and at the time of occurrence D. S. P. Chengalpet. The allegations in the complaint show, that on 23-4-1989 at or about 10.10 p.m. when the petitioner was having supper in the Dining Hall of his house, he heard a clatter of shoes of a posse of men. When he diverted his attention, he found to his utter dismay and shock the respondent accompanied by two constables menacingly rushing towards him with lathies. Before he could utter a word the respondent beat him violently with his lathis with a metal band at its tip. The beating landed on his left eyebrow. More blows were rained on him by the respondent, while two constables in the company of the respondent, also beat him with lathies. When the appellant protested, the respondent attempted to catch hold of his neck and in so doing, the 5 sovereign gold chain, worn by him got snapped. The respondent picked up the gold chain, and gave some more lathi beatings, to the petitioner. The two constables were strangers to the petitioner, and hence he was not in a position to identify them to show them as accused in his private complaint. He was bundled up into a police van and taken to Padalam Police Station. At Padalam police station he fainted. The police took him to the Madurantakam Hospital for first aid. He was referred to the Government General Hospital, Madras, as his condition was serious. The concerned police after obtaining remand from the Judicial Magistrate, Madurantakam, on the early hours of 24-4-1989, marched him into Central Hail, Madras without taking him to the General hospital, as advised by the medical Officer, Madurantakam. Due to beating by the respondent coupled with non-production for treatment before Government General Hospital, Madras, led to permanent impairment of petitioners eye sight. In the complaint, the petitioner has also stated, that the respondent was not acting in discharge of his official duties. The offences alleged in the complaint are punishable under Sections 448, 323 and 392 Indian Penal Code.

(2.) On receipt of the complaint, the learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the appellant on 27-6-1989. The learned Magistrate decided to conduct an enquiry under Section 202 CR. P.C. Venkatesan cited in the complaint was examined as C.W. 1 on 20-7-1989 and thereafter the impugned order dismissing the complaint of the petitioner was passed on 24/08/1989. In this revision, the petitioner challenges the sustainability of the order of dismissal of his complaint in law as well as on facts.

(3.) The learned Magistrate while dismissing the complaint has stated in his order, that he had perused the remand report sent by the police in Crime No. 201 of 1989, seeking to have the petitioner and his brother Ukam Chand remanded. Basing on the contents of the remand report, not exhibited in this proceeding, the learned Magistrate sought to doubt the case of the petitioner as though he was suppressing a part of the occurrence. The learned Magistrate further noticed a discrepancy, that before the Magistrate who had remanded the petitioner, he had stated, that his chain was removed by the constables who had accompanied the D.S.P. and not the D.S.P. himself. The main thrust of the dismissal of the complaint is based on the contents of the remand report. The learned Magistrate would further state in his order, that he was unable to accept, that before the other police constables, a person of status like the petitioner would have been assaulted by the Superintendent of police. One another snag noticed by the Inquiring Magistrate was that the identity of the chain had not been stated by the petitioner in his complaint and sworn statement. Some other discrepancies between the sworn statement and the complaint, very trivial in nature, were sought to be magnified by the Magistrate in his endeavour to dismiss the complaint. The last ground for dismissal, is the belated filing of the private complaint, 2 months after the incident.