BIR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision has been filed under the following circumstances. On 30-8-1949, Basdeo filed a complaint against Bir Singh & 12 other persons, charging them with offences punishable under Section 147 & Sections 323 & 325 read with Section 149, Penal Code, in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadabad, in the Mathura district. The allegations in the complaint were that, on 21-7-1948, while the complainant was returning from the jungle, with his cattle, & passed by the house of Bir Singh, the latter asked him not to pass in front of his house; that the complainant went away towards his house saying that there could be no objection to his passing over a public thoroughfare; & that thereafter Bir Singh & the other accused persons came to the house of the complainant, wanted to drive away the cattle to the cattle-pound & when they were stopped from doing so, they attacked the complainant & his brother with lathis, causing them simple & grievous hurt.

(2.) The Sub-Divisional Magistrate took cognizance of the offences, complained of, & after the examination of the complainant, under Section 200, Cri. P. C., decided to inquire into the case, & directed the complainant to produce evidence, under Section 202 of the Code. The complainant produced a copy of the first information report, lodged with the police, & the injury reports showing injuries said to have been inflicted upon the complainant & his brothers during the incident. Then the case was transferred to the Court of Shri C.S. Sharma, a Magistrate of the second class at Sadabad, for disposal.

(3.) On 20-9-1949, Shri C.S. Sharma issued processes to the accused persons; & they were directed to appear on 5-10-1949. On the last mentioned date, the accused appeared & filed an application wherein they stated that on three previous occasions Basdeo had filed similar complaints against them, & those complaints had been dismissed for want of prosecution or evidence; that the previous complaints & the present one had been filed to harass them; & that the fourth complaint was in law not maintainable & it ought to be dismissed. The Magistrate rejected the application on the ground that he had no power to refuse to entertain or proceed with the complaint.