KAMTA PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under S. 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the order dated 11-2-1981 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Meerut and for discharge of the applicants. The relief claimed in the application is for allowing the revision but it is brought to my notice that before filing this application it was converted under S. 482, Cr. P.C. as is clear from the title of the case, but the relief claimed in the application has not been amended. I am proceeding to dispose of this application treating it to be under S. 482, Cr. P.C.

(2.) None has appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 in spite of personal service. Learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State are present. The facts leading to the present proceedings are very short. The opposite party No. 2, Raghuraj Singh, is a military man, who was posted at Meerut at the relevant time. He filed a complaint before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Meerut on 17-12-1980 (vide copy of the complaint, Annexure '1') regarding an incident dated 16-12-1980 which occurred at about 5-30 p.m. and in which he was beaten by accused applicants Kamta Prasad, Master, Deodutt and Jai Ram and was relieved of Rs. 150.00 cash by accused master and was relieved of his wrist watch forcibly by accused Jai Ram. The complainant raised alarm which brought to the scene of occurrence witnesses Om Prakash, Mahabir, Ranbir, Ratan and others passers by who witnessed the occurrence and also chased them for quite a long distance, as a result of which accused applicant Kamta Prasad was apprehended. The said Kamta Prasad on the interrogation disclosed the names of other accused persons. When the complainant and the witnesses Om Prakash and others were bringing accused Kamta Prasad to police station Sadar Bazar, Meerut Canatt the other accused persons, namely Master, Deodutt and Jai Ram, armed with pistol and knife got Kamta Prasad released and fled away. It is also mentioned that the complainant had gone to lodge the report at police station Sadar Bazar but the Station Officer did not allow the report to be scribed and, therefore, the complaint was filed in the court. The learned Magistrate examined the complainant under S. 200, Cr. P.C. (vide copy of the statement, Annexure '1-A') and instead of enquiring the case himself under S. 202, Cr. P.C. he directed investigation to be made by the police, who submitted its report dated 13-1-1981 (vide copy of the report, Annexure - '2'). In this report, the last line reveals that the police found the case truthful on the basis of the enquiry made from the witnesses Om Prakash, Ratan, Ranbir and Mahabir with regard to the incident. The learned Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 11-2-1981 after perusing the statement of the complainant made under S. 200, Cr. P.C. and examining the enquiry report made by the Sub-Inspector of Police dated 13-1-1981, which was submitted after enquiry under S. 202, Cr. P.C. found that there are sufficient grounds for issuing process against the accused-applicants under S. 392, IPC.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State. The argument made by the learned counsel for the applicants was that the complaint has been filed as a counterblast to the first information report dated 25-11-1980 (vide copy, Annexure-3) which had been filed by the applicant No. 1, Kamta Prasad at Kotwali Mainpuri against the brothers and father of the opposite party No. 2. Ranjeet Singh and others under Ss. 147, 452 and 323, IPC. It was further contended that neither any first information report, nor any injury report had been filed by the complainant. No witness other than himself (complainant) has also been examined by the complainant it is also contended that all the accused-applicants are residents of Mainpuri though the incident is alleged to have taken place at Meerut and that the entire complaint case is false and concocted one only to implicate the applicants as accused in the case.