BHANU PRATAP SINGH Vs. SURENDRA NATH SAVITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Santosh Singh, applicant, filed a complaint against a Head Constable and a constable, then posted in Jhansi. They were summoned to face trial. Shortly thereafter, a complaint was filed in the Court of Munsif Magistrate Banda against the applicants who are residents of Jhansi Town. Cognizance of the case was taken and some time thereafter non boilable warrants were issued against the applicants (Criminal Case No. 372 of 1984 Sur'indra Nath Savita v. Bhanu Praup Singh and others under Section 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code), from the Court )f Sri S. C. Bose, the then Munsif Magis trate, Banda. This revision is directed against tie said order primarily on tie ground that the Head Constable and the Constable who figure as accused in the Criminal Case started by one of the applicant at Jhansi has been instrumental in initiating Criminal Case in the Court at Banda against the applicants with falsa and frivolous allegations and that too in the name of an imaginary person. There has been a cleat and categorical insertion of the applicants that nobody has in fact filed complaint at Banda and that the complaint is the result of mischief and manoeuvring of the Head Constable and the constable who have set the machinery by way of counter blast. 2. An order was passed by this Court for issuing notice to the opposite party whose none appears as complainant in the original case started at Banda. Notice was received back with a report that no such person lives at the address given in the complaint. A report was taken called for from the Chief Judicial Magistrate Banda who was required to effect service on the opposite party. Documents received there from clearly show that the opposite party does not reside at the place which has been shown by way of address in the complainant in which the applicants figure as accused. There is thus sufficient material on record to clearly indicate that the complaint has been filed in the name of such a person who does not reside at the address given in the complaint. ' It goes a long way to substantiate the assertion of' the applicants that the complaint is a bogus one and has been brought in the Court with a view to harass the applicants. 3. A question may arise for consideration as to whether revision against the impugned order is competent or applicants should have filed petition under Section '482 of the' Code of Criminal Procedure. I do not feel it essential at all to enter into this academic discussion in this case. It is apparent that the proceedings in the Court below are nothing but an abuse of the process of the court initiated with the object of causing harassment to the applicants with frivolous and false assertions in the name of a person who does not reside at the address given in the complaint. It is in the fitness of things that such proceedings should be quashed. There is no room for doubt fiat,' the person who purports to have initiated the criminal proceedings is not traceable. The necessary consequence is that the complaint, in his absence, cannot proceed. For this reason also the ends of justice require that such proceedings should not be allowed to continue and the applicants, who reside in Jhansi. Who saved from harassment. 4. In the result, the revision is allowed and after setting aside the impugned summon ing order quash the proceedings of the case, referred to above, pending against the applicants in the court of Munsif Magis trate at Banda Revision Allowed .