JAGDISH PRASAD GAUR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 3.12.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Criminal Revision No. 582 of 2002. The brief facts of this case are that the revisionist Dr. Jagdish Prasad Gaur is a retired Reader and Head of Department of I.P. (P.G.) College, Bulandshahr and after his retirement he settled down in the city of Ghaziabad. On 12.5.1998 at about 8.00 A.M. he went to railway station, Ghaziabad and stood in the que before counter No. 541. He was there for reservation of a railway ticket for one Smt. Shobha Narayan. After a while the revisionist and other persons who were standing in the que noticed that the reservation officials were committing irregularities. They were accepting money and reservation forms from certain travel agents bypassing the que. Such travel agents and middlemen were getting reservation tickets premptorily and without standing in the que which was against the prescribed rules. The revisionist could not digest the irregularities and he went straight away to opposite party No. 3, Shivdan Singh, who was sitting on the counter and issuing reservation tickets. Oopposite party No. 2, Ram Gopal Sharma was occupying the reservation counter No. 542 which was adjacent to counter No. 541. The revisionist lodged his protest against the abovementioned irregularities being committed by them upon which opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 started misbehaving with the revisionist. The revisionist went to Shift Supervisor R.K. Meena, opposite party No. 4, and demanded from him the complaint book. The opposite party No. 4 refused to give the complaint book to the revisionist. Thereafter the revisionist and other persons forming the que pressed their demand for the complaint book and to write their complaint therein. Seeing the mounting pressure by the public, the opposite party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 asked the revisionist to come inside the reservation room. In good faith the revisionist went inside where, after bolting the door from inside, the opposite party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 abused and assaulted him. Thereafter they handed him over to opposite party No. 5 Jai Kumar who was a constable at G.R.P., Ghaziabad. The opposite party No. 5 also assaulted the revisionist and took him to the G.R.P. Police Station and throughout the way he kept on slapping him. A false report was lodged against the revisionist and he was detained at the police station and produced before the court of the Magistrate concernd at 4.30 P.M. wherefrom he was released on bail. Thereafter the revisionist went to the Government Hospital where he was medically examined and a medical report was prepared. The revisionist tried to lodge an F.I.R. with the G.R.P. Ghaziabad but in vain; so he moved an application before the court of learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure but the same was rejected. Thereafter he filed a complaint against all the four opposite parties placed at Sl. Nos. 2 to 5 of the memo of revision. In the complaint case which was under Section 323/342/504 I.P.C. the learned Magistrate directed them to appear before the court on 7.2.2000. Feeling aggrieved by the summoning order, the opposite party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 preferred a criminal reviision before the learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad which was registered there as Criminal Revision No. 582 of 2002. It should be mentioned here that opposite party No. 5, Constable Jai Kumar, posted in G.R.P. Railway Station, Ghaziabad has not filed any revision.

(2.) After hearing both the parties, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision vide his order dated 3.12.2002 quashing and setting aside the summoning order dated 6.1.2000 passed by the learned Magistrate. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, the present revision has been filed before this Court.

(3.) This revision was listed for hearing on 26.11.2010. On that date the learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned Counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 and learned A.G.A. were pressed. No one was present on behalf of opposite party No. 5 despite the fact that he has been served with the notice issued by this Court.