LAKSHMI PRASAD Vs. RAM GOPAL PANDIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. filed by Lakshmi Prasad and R. P. Sharma for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3100 of 1976 pending before C. J. M. Allahabad, on the ground that on the allegations made in the complaint no case of any kind is made out against them and the case in question was nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court.

(2.) THE applicants Lakshmi Prasad and R. P. Sharma are railway employees both being Travelling Ticket Examiners on Northern Railways. On 17-6-76 they were on duty in 1 Up Kalka Mail at different timings. It is said that on 17-6-76 the opp. party (R. G. Pandiya) and his wife were to travel by 1 Up Kalka Mail from Allahabad upto Kalka and so both of them had got two berths reserved in a Second Class 3 Tier compartment for their journey. Accordingly, both of them boarded 1 Up Kalka Mail at Allahabad at 9.15 A. M. and took their seats in a Second Class 3 Tier Compartment. Applicant no. 2 arrived in the compartment when the train started moving. THEy then inquired from him about their reserved berths. He told them that their reservation had been cancelled. THEy were greatly non-plussed on knowing this thing. THEy were, however, to cover a long journey and they, therefore, requested to him to make some arrangement for them. He assured them that when the train would arrive at Kanpur, he will arrange for their accommodation in the compartment. When the train was about to reach Kanpur, they again reminded him of the assurance given by him, whereupon he told them that his duty would end at Kanpur, but he would tell his substitute Ho make suitable arrangement for them. [It is alleged that when the train arrived tat Kanpur, applicant no. 1 came in [place of applicant no. 2 and asked the opposite party and his wife to leave the compartment failing which he would throw out their luggage. THE opposite party pleaded with him not to do so, but be did not relent. In the meanwhile the train started and applicant no. 1 tried to throw his luggage out of the compartment. He and the other passengers of the compartment stopped him from doing so. After some time, he requested applicant no. 1 to take fresh reservation charges from him and provide two empty berths for him and his wife but applicant no. 1 paid no heed to his request. Instead he inquired from him as to how he had been travelling/in this compartment uptil now. THE opposite party fell humiliated and asked applicant no. 1 to tell him his name and he wrongly gave out his name as Dinesh Kumar. When he asked him to give his name in writing, he lost his temper and caught him by his coller. He also retaliated and ultimately even pulled the chain and the train stopped. Applicant no. 1 then called the Guard of the train and the Guard took his and his wife's ticket. THEreafter the train moved and reached Etawah. At Etawah applicant no. 1 and some other railway employees forced him and his wife to get down from the train. After they had got down from the train, they were told that they were in custody. THE opposite party lodged a complaint in writing with the Station Master at Etawah. but to no effect. Later on, he complained to the higher authorities also but in vain. He then filed a complaint against the applicants and on the basis of that complaint the applicants were summoned under sections 120 and 129 of the Indian Railways Act and sections 352 and 342 I.P.C. It is for the quash-ment of this "complaint that the present application under section 482 Cr.P,C, has been riled.

(3.) FURTHER, there is one thing more which needs to be mentioned in regard to the case of applicant no. 1. If applicant no. 1 had committed any offence a all, he had committed it either at Kanpur or at some place beyond Kan- pur. His prosecution at Allahabad was, therefore, unwarranted. Section 183 CrPC deals with offences committed on journey or voyage. It says that when an offence is committed, while the person against whom the offence is committed, is in the course of performing journey, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court through or into whose local jurisdiction that person in tike course of that journey passed. The learned counsel for the opposite party wants this section to be interpreted in a liberal manner. According to him, if an offence is committed against a person during the course of journey, that offence should be tried either at the place where the person against whom the offence was committed boarded the train or at the place where his journey was to end, or at any other place lying between these two places. This interpretation may hold good while considering those cases in which the offence was not detected at the time when it was actually committed, but was detected later on, say at the end of the journey. In that event, because of the lack of knowledge of the place where the offence was committed, it could be tried at any of the place as pointed out by the learned counsel. However, in those cases where the offence is seen being committed, it must be tried in the Court in whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Suppose a person boards a train at Allahabad for going to Bombay, and at Naini (three miles away from Allahabad), his pocket is picked in the train, and the offender is caught red-handed. Thereafter the person concerned continues his journey and reaches Bombay. To say that the culprit caught at Naini, could be tried at Bombay or at any other place between Allahabad and Bombay, will be ridiculous. In my opinion, he must be tried at Allahabad where the offence was committed. This is the only view possible after going through the provisions oil sections 183 and 177 CrPC. Both these sections are to be construed harmoniously and not independent of each other. Illogical results will follow if they are viewed in isolation. In this case applicant no. 1 was said to have committed offence against the opposite party at Kanpur and beyond that, and, therefore, his trial at Allahabad was undoubtedly without jurisdiction.