HARENDRA Vs. NAIPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 22-9-1982 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, in Criminal Revision No. 386 of 1981. By that order he set aside the order dated 22-10-1981 passed by Sri Bishambhar Dayal, Special Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in case No. 1 of 1981 under Section 342, I.P.C.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 12-12-1980 Rajpal Singh son of Kartar Singh, brother of the complainant had gone to village Iswar to deposit his school fees. One Harendra accused of this case took Rajpal to village Daurala for showing some feature film but he was taken to village Mansoorpur in district Muzaffarnagar. The other two accused persons, with one unknown man, joined there. They took Rajpal to the Railway station and offered tea and the boy became unconscious after taking tea. He was taken to Hardwar in that condition and confined in a house there. Their intention was to sell the boy. He was kept there till 24-12-1980 when he was threatened frequently. On that day the boy escaped somehow and returned to his house. He narrated the whole story to his father, on which he filed a report at the police station. On 1-1-1981 the father of the boy filed a complaint under Sections 363 and 342, I.P.C. in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. The said Magistrate after recording the statements of the complainant and two witnesses summoned the accused persons under Section 342, I.P.C. The accused person appeared and on 28-5-1981 they moved an application contending that the said Court had no jurisdiction to try this case as according to the prosecution the boy was confined at Hardwar. On the said date i.e. on 28-5-1991 the complainant did not appear as he died and hence the accused persons were acquitted.

(3.) On 22-6-1981 one Nepal Singh, brother-of late Kartar Singh filed another application with regard to the said incident and the learned Magistrate after examining the complainant and after going through the record of the previous case summoned accused persons under Section 342, I.P.C. On 21-9-1981 the accused persons appeared and an application was moved challenging the maintainability of the second complaint view of the provisions of Section 300, Cr. P.C. The learned Magistrate, after hearing the parties, dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused. A revision was filed against the said order by Nepa1 Singh, which was allowed on 22-9-1982. The order of the Magistrate dated 22-10-1981 was set aside with a direction to decide the case afresh and to proceed according to law. The learned Sessions Judge is of the opinion that the provision of Section 300, Cr. P.C. has no application in this case. He has also held that the circumstance for non-appearance of the complainant Kartar Singh in the first case, was due to his death and the Magistrate ought not to have dismissed the complaint at the first instance. He has also held that in both the cases proper appraisal of the merits of the case was not done as it was a case of kidnapping but the Magistrate summoned the accused persons under Section 342, I.P.C. which was improper.