RANGAYAMMAL Vs. CHENNIMALAI GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision by the complainant Rangaiyammal is directed against the order of dismissal u/s. 203, Crl. P. C. , passed by the judicial Second Class Magistrate, Bhavani, in P. R. C. No. 16/83 instituted on a private complaint by the petitioner against the respondents for offences under secs. 148, 342, 447, 427 and 395, I. P. C.

(2.) THIS facts giving rise to the present revision briefly are: The petitioner presented a private complaint before the Judicial Second class Magistrate, Bhavani against the respondents for the offences shown above, on the allegation that on 7. 6. 1983 at 6. 00 P. M. , the respondents herein trespassed into her lands, destroyed the standing crops, caused injuries to the prosecution witnesses, tied them with ropes and committed robbery. There had been long standing dispute between the petitioner on the one side and the respondents on the other. The dispute related to the enjoyment of the land, where the occurrence had taken place, and in respect of which civil proceedings were pending, and an injunction had been obtained by the petitioner restraining the respondents from interfering with her possession of the land. On the date of the occurrence, the respondents 1 to 3 assaulted the petitioner, hit her with stones and respondents 4 and 5 tied Lakshmi, daughter of the petitioner, and assaulted her and 2nd respondent beat Lakshmi and snatched her gold thali weighing six sovereigns and respondents 7, 8, 9 and 10 assaulted Easwari, daughter of the petitioner and respondents 3, 4, 11 and 12 assaulted Subramanian, son of the petitioner and all the respondents damaged standing crops (Kambu) and a shed located in the garden and also damaged the articles inside the shed. The petitioner presented a complaint to the local police but the same was not properly enquired into and no action was taken by the police. The petitioner, therefore presented a private complaint against the respondents before the 3udicial Second Class Magistrate, Bhavani, which was taken on file by him as p. R. C. No. 16/83. Before issuing process to the respondents, the learned magistrate conducted an enquiry under Sec. 202, Cr. P. C. , in the course of which, the complainant examined P. Ws. 1 to 9 on her side and marked Exs. P1 to P5. P. Ws. 1 to 7 speak about the occurrence, P. W. 8 is the Medical Officer who examined P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4 and issued Exs. P1 to P3. P. W. 9 is the Grade I Police constable attached to Bhavani Police Station. On a consideration of the entire material, the learned Magistrate found that the evidence let in was not sufficient to issue process to the respondents for proceeding further in the matter, and dismissed the complaint of the petitioner under Sec. 203, Cr. P. C. THIS revision is directed against the above order of dismissal.

(3.) ON a consideration of the various pronouncements referred to above, it is clear that Sec. 203, Cr. P. C. , is merely intended to prevent issuing of process on a complaint which is either false or vexatious or intended only to harass such a person. Truth or otherwise of the allegations made cannot be adjudged. The correctness or the probability or improbability of evidence on disputed grounds cannot be determined at this stage. This probable defence inferences from delay in laying the complaint, the benefit of exceptions to specific provisions of law are beyond the scope of Sec. 203, cr. P. C.