RAM DULAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Dular, it appears, filed a complaint against Sheo Prasad, Laviesh Kumar, Brahma Pati, Ramesh Chandra and Rais Chandra for offences under sections 395/397/323/324 Indian Penal Code, P.S. Meja, Allahabad. The statement of the complainant -was taken down under section 200 Criminal Procedure Code. This was followed by the statement recorded under section 202 of the Code. The recording of statement under that provision was spread over several dates and the last witness examined in that connection was on August 10, 1983. He was the Medical Officer concerned. On August 10, 1983 at the conclusion of the statement recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C. the Special Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad seized of the case directed that the same be put up for orders on August 18, 1983. On August 18, 1983 it was adjourned to 22nd August, 1983. On August 22, 1983 the order passed was as under: - Case called out several times, No body is present. Dismissed in default.

(2.) Aggrieved against this Ram Dular the complainant had moved this Court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which is registered as Criminal Miscellaneous application No. 109 of 1984. Against the same order he has filed the criminal Revision No. 475 of 1984.

(3.) Learned counsel contends that subsequent to the recording of the statement under section 202 of the Code, the order made by the court below dismissing the complaint in default was without jurisdiction. In this connection a reference may be made to section 203 of the Code which provides that if, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry of investigation (if any) under section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing. This indicates clearly that when the statements under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have concluded it is upto the Magistrate to form opinion on the relevant material whether there exists sufficient ground to proceed. In so far as the complainant is concerned there is virtually nothing more left for him to do. The absence of the complainant, therefore, in person or through his counsel on the dates fixed subsequent to the conclusion of the recording of the statements under section 202 of the Code could not be taken to be of any consequence. Whatsoever material the complainant had to adduce in support of his case, he had already put forward and the statements had concluded as recorded by the Magistrate himself. In not applying his mind to the material thus brought on the record and instead proceeding to dismiss the complaint in default, the Magistrate may not be said to have acted according to law and this jurisdictional error on his part is manifest on the record.