ALAMZAB SAYYAD BADSHAH MIYAGUL Vs. MOHAMMED HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the Appellant, who was the original Complainant in the Trial Court, impugning the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 36th Court, Bombay Central, dated 31-8-1976.

(2.) The complainant filed a private Complaint in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate against three Accused who are Respondents 1, 2 and 3 in this Appeal charging them with offences punishable under secs. 120-A. 144, 399, 425, 447, 504, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate was pleased to issue summons on Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 under Sections 426, 506 & 448 of the Indian Penal Code During the course of the trial, the Complainant informed the learned Magistrate that Accused No 3 was not the person who was implicated in the assault on him. Consequently the learned Magistrate was pleased to discharge Accused No 3. Thereafter the case proceeded only against Accused Nos. 1 & 2. The Complainants's case was that he had constructed a hut in the area known as "Sunder Nagar Zopadpatti" near King's Circle Railway Station His hut was numbered 253. In 1971 the mother-in-law of Accused No. 1 approached him and requested him to let out the front portion of the Complainant's hut to Accused No, 1. The Complainant, however, declined to accede to the suggestion of Accused No 1's mother in-law. On 17.3.1974 at about 5.00 p. m. when the Complainant was at the King's Circle Railway Station, Accused No. 2 accompained by 2 or 3 other persons approached the Complainant. Accused No 2 asked the Complainant to leave the Sunder Nagar Zopadpatti area. Accused No. 2 threatened the Complainant that if he did not leave the area he would pay with his life. The Complainant asked Accused No. 2 as to the reason why accused No. 2 wanted the Compiainant to leave the Sunder Nagar Zopadpatti area, whereupon Accused No. 2 stated that the Complainant should leave the Zopadpatti area if he wanted to remain alive. The Complainant stated that he then went to the Matunga Police Station and lodge a N. C. Complaint.

(3.) The Complainant then stated that on 24.3.1974 he returned home at about 7.30 p. m. at which time he noticed a crowd gathered near his hut. He noticed that a part of his hut had been demolished and that Accused Ncs. 1 and 2, and 7 or 3 others were standing nearby. Accused No 2 held a big stick in his hand. The others present held crow bars in their hands. According to the Con plainant Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had demolished that pert of his hut in respect of which the mother-in-law of Accused No. 1 had requested the Complainant in 1971 that, that part be leased out to Accused No 1. On seeing the Complainant Accused No. 1 abused the Complainant and called upon his companions to assault the Complainant and not to leave him. Thereafter ail the persons surrounded the Complainant. However, as the Complainant was carrying a child in his arms, those persons didnot assault him. The Complainant then went to the Matunga Police Station and fetched two Police Constables Accused Nos. 1 & 2 and tne other two persons were then taken to the Police station. The comdlainant was recorded at the Police station. According to the Complainant his alarm watch, certain utensils and a sum of Rs 125 were missing from his hut. As the Police did not prosecute the Aocused the Complainant filed a private Complaint in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 36th Court, Bombay Central, Bombay.