(1.) - This Petition coming on for hearing on Wednesday the 6th of April 88. Upon persuing the petition, and the Orders of the Lower Courts, and the record in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. R. Nadanasabapathy, Advocate, for the petitioner and of Mr. T. Somasundaram, Advocate for the respondent and the case having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following Order:This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Salam, setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salam, In P.R.C. No. 4 of 1984 and directing further enquiry into the con plaint of the respondent herein.
(2.) The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision are briefly as follows: -The respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) filed a complaint under section 200, Cr.P.C. against the revision-petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the accused) on the following allegations. The Complainant purchased a vacant land from one Lakshmi Ammal in 1964 and put up a construction therein, bearing door No. 7, while so, the second accused purchased the said land along with the building from the land owner on 30.5.1969 and was attempting to evict the complainant forcibly without resorting to legal process The first accused is the husband of the second accused. Accused 3 to 5 are the sons of accused 1 and 2. Accused 7 to 9 are their henchmen.
(3.) On 29.1.1984 at about 11 A.M. all the nine accused came in a body, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with aruval, stick, koduval and cycle chain, trespassed into the house of the complainant and committed dacoity in-respect of iron box, iron rods and some other articles worth Rs. 2,000/. When the complainant condemned the activities of the accused, the first accused by showing koduval threatened to murder him if he comes near. He also caught hold of the tuft of the Complainant's wife and dragged her and thereby outraged her modesty. The accused damaged the western portion of the house. In respect of the same, the complainant gave a written complaint at the Pallapatti Police Station. But, they refusal to entertain the same. Hence, he resorted the matter to the higher authorities by sending telegrams. Thereafter, on the evening the Pallapatti police received the complaint and gave a receipt. However, they did not take any action. The acts committed by the accused amount to offences under sections 147, 148, 354, 392, 427, 448, read with section 506-11, I.P.C. Hence, the complainant has filed the complaint. The said complaint was referred to Pallapatti Police under section 156, Cr.P.C. with a direction to register the case and investigate the same. After investigation, it was referred as mistake of fact. On the memo filed by the complainant requesting the court to enquire into the same, he was examined on oath and the case was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 4 of 1984. The court directed the complainant to produce witnesses. Accordingly, the complainants as well as three witnesses were examined as P.Ws. 1 to 4 and Exs. P. 1 to P. 5 were marked. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for the reasons stated in his detailed order came to the conclusion that there is no sufficient ground to proceed with the same and consequently dismissed the complaint under section 203, Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant preferred revision in Cr1. RC. No. 62 of 1984 before the Sessions Court, Salam. The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision and directed further enquiry. Hence, this revision by the accused.