DEENA NATH Vs. MAKHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by the complainant who had lodged a complaint on 3 -7 - 1951 against the accused non -applicant for offences under Sections 420 and 384, Indian Penal Code in the Court of first class Magistrate Morar. The allegations in the complaint were that on 1 -5 - 1949 the accused came to Morar, and administered some intoxicating drug to the complainant and got his signatures on a Hundi worth Rs. 79,000/ - on the stamps of Uttar Pradesh Government. It is alleged that the complainant filed the report in police station. Morar against the accused on the evening of 1 -5 -1949. It is further alleged that a notice was given to the accused on 3 -5 -1949, After having done this it is very strange that the complainant waited for two years for filing a complaint. The police did not take any action on the report. Presumably they did not regard the report as genuine one and so did not challan the accused. Then when the accused came to the Court on 23 -11 -1951, he filed an application stating that a civil suit had been filed on 14 -4 -51 in Bulandshahr for the recovery of the sum due on the Hundi and he prayed that the criminal case should be stayed till the decision of the civil suit. The 1st Class Magistrate Morar granted this application and stayed proceedings in the criminal Court. This order has been upheld by the Sessions Judge in revision. Against this order the complainant had come up to this Court.

(2.) THE ordinary principle in revision is this that if the discretion exercised by the Magistrate is not arbitrary or capricious there will be no interference by, this Court. After hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel I have come to the conclusion that the Magistrate's order was neither arbitrary nor capricious and the revision must be dismissed.