KAMARAJ Vs. NEHRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE admission of this revision is sought for against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Salem, in Crl.M.P. No.230 of 1995 in C.C. No.324 of 1994, dated 25.6.1995, filed under Sec.245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners, who are the accused, praying for their discharge for the offence alleged to have been committed by them in the private complaint.

(2.) THE respondent herein by name Nehru was alleged to have been beaten by all these petitioners at about 12 p.m. on 9.6.1991. When he was sitting in front of his house, the third petitioner indulged in abusing him in filthy language and while he was questioning he brought the other four accused altogether and consequently the second petitioner cut the respondent with Koduval on his head and caused a bleeding cut injury. Having the respondent caught hold of by the third and fifth petitioners, the fourth petitioner and the first petitioner beat the respondent upon his left wrist followed by the fifth petitioner beating him with wooden reeper on his right shoulder. As the neighbours approached them, all the petitioners took to their heels with their weapon in their hands. While they were doing so, some of them fell down, however, they made good of their escapes. THE respondent was brought to the Government hospital and got admitted and treatment was given. On the next day, at the Government Hospital, he was examined by Pallappatti police and a case in Crime No.505 of 1991 was registered. It was alleged, since the police were inimical towards the respondent, they had not investigated the case properly but however, a false case had been foisted against him. THErefore, a private complaint against the petitioners for the offences under Secs. 147, 148, 323, 324 and 341, I.P.C. has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate by the respondent which however was sent to the police under Sec.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation. As the police had not completed the investigation nor filed any report nor examined any witnesses, the respondent is compelled to file this private complaint under Sec. 200, Crl.P.C.

(3.) HAVING given the opportunity to both sides who were repudiating their contentions respectively, the learned Judicial Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the alleged defence of alibi projected on behalf of the first two petitioners on the basis of the evidence given by the doctor in another case and the total denial specifically projected on behalf of the remaining three petitioners can be gone into after recording of the entire evidence by and on behalf of the complainant and acceding the prayer for discharge at this stage cannot be possible. Holding so, the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order rejecting the prayer for discharge. Aggrieved at this, the present revision was filed and the admission was sought for. On ordering notice of motion, the respondent entered appearance through the Bar. Accordingly, I have heard both today.