VANKA RAJULU Vs. SINGUPALLI SOMUNAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the complainant before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palasa, has invoked the Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code'), to set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulamin Crl.RP.No.13 of 1990, which confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate in un-numbered PRC of 1989, dt.3-1-1990, dismissing the complaint of the petitioner.

(2.) The facts, in short, leading to the filing of this petition, as disclosed in the complaint, are that the petitioner, an employee of Visakhapatnam Port Trust, owns lands of an extent of Ac. 15 in Chintapalem Village in Vizianagaram District. The Respondents 1 to 26, accused in the un-numbered PRC of 1989 before the leamedMagistrate, are tenants and are in possession of the said lands. The petitioner filed civil suits against the accused when the accused denied title and the suits are pending. The acoused for med them selves into an unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapons came upon his house on 13-8-1989 and threatened him and demanded to extend the lease of the lands as per their terms and conditions, using force. When he refused, the accused beat him and also snatched his gold chain and two gold rings and the purse containing Rs.800/-. They left the place threatening him with dire consequences. He gave a report to the police in person and sent another by registered post But the police refused to take any action. Hence he sent a complaint to the learned Magistrate. The petitioner filed the complaint against the accused for the offences under Section 147, 148,379,307, 506(2) of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 34 and 109IP C. Thereafter, the sworn statement of the petitioner was recorded by the learned Magistrate and five witnesses were examined as C.Ws.l to 5. However, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code holding that the allegations were false and that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding with any of the offences. The petitioner moved Crl.R.P.No.13 of 1990 before the AdditionalSessions Judge, Srikakulam questioning the said order of the learned Magistrate, unsuccessfully. Now the petitioner is before this Court under Section 482 of the Code.

(3.) Under Section 203 of the Code the Magistrate may summarily dismiss a complaint, if, after considering the statement on oath of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the investigation under Section 202 of the Code, he is of the opinion that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding with the case. Though the Courts below have noticed the parameters of the jurisdiction under Section 203 of the Code, correctly, they have committed a serious error by exceeding such jurisdiction, in passing the impugned order, dismissing the complaint. They have embarked upon the intrinsic worth of the evidence and probed into the veracity of the evidence and assessed their credibility, which is not permissible at this stage. The learned Magistrate having noticed that the suits instituted between the parties with regard to the lease and possession of the land, doubted the evidence of the petitioner's witnesses and the allegations contained in the complaint about the genesis of the attack or the accused. The motive behind the attack or the necessity of the same should have been left to be decided during the trial. The non-production of the sticks and knives and the failure to file wound certificate can be a ground to disbelieve that part of the allegation constituting the offence under Section 3 07 JPC. But, it is certainty not a ground for dismissing the complaint with regard to other offences alleged by the petitioner. Areading of the orderof the learned Magistrate shows that C.Ws. 1 to 5 have consistently deposed in support of the case of the complainant Their evidence cannot be sifted and weighed and discarded. The approach of the learned Magistrate therefore, amounts to appreciation of evidence on record, in order to find that the accused are not guilty. The said approach is impermissible.