ISWAR CHANDRA SAHU Vs. SARAT CHANDRA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the learned Subdivisional judicial Magistrate, Padampur (S..D. J. M.) on 31 -5 -1986 in I. C. C. Case No. 27 of 1985 dismissing the complaint Under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code is assailed in this revision petition filed by the complainant.

(2.) THE petitioner filed the complaint alleging inter alia, that on 16 -11 -1985 at about 12 noon when he along with Bharat Chandra Sahu and Basudev Meher was going on the road near Panda Hotel at Padampur, Shri P. C. Mallik an Asst. Sub -inspector of Police came there and took the complainant and his companions to Padampur Police Station. They were made to wait there. After sometime the accused -opposite party came there and rebuked the complaint and his companion in unparliamentary words and demanded Rs. 3000/ - threatening to confine them in the police lock -up unless the said amount was paid to him. As the complainant and his companions protested, the opposite party extorted Rs. 360/ - from possession of the complainant and Rs. 155/ -from Basudev Meher and demanded the balance amount. The complainant and others were wrong - fully confined in the police lock -up and allowed to leave only after giving their signature on blank sheets of paper under threat of confinement by the opposite party and out of fear for the consequences. On these allegations the petitioner allged that the opposite party had committed the offence of extortion punishable Under Section 384, Indian Penal Code (IPC). He had complained before the Sub -divisional Police Officer, when he came to the police station but nothing tangible came of it except a promise by the officer to took into the matter. On 10 -2 -1986 the complainant's statement Under Section 200, Cr. P. C. was recorded. The learned S. D. J. M. postponed issue of process against the accused and he!d an enquiry Under Section 202 Cr. P. C. In the said enquiry the petitioner examined two witnesses, Gujaram Biswai and Bharat Sahu, who narrated the incident witnessed by them. The learned Magistrate on consideration of the statements of the petitioner and his witnesses dismissed that complaint stating the reason 'statement of the witnesses as well as the initial statement of the complainant are nothing but stock -pile of material discrepancies'. The said order is under challenge in this revision petition.

(3.) ON reading the provisions of Sections 202 and 203, Cr. P. C, it is clear that a Magistrate must first examine on oath the complainant and his witnesses present, if any, and then he shall dismiss the complaint__(1) if he finds that no offence has been committed, or (2) if he distrusts the statement of the complainant and his witnesses examined; and (3) he shall also dismiss if on a consideration of the result of inquiry or investigation, if any, Under Section 202, he thinks that there is no ground for proceeding. A complaint may also be dismissed if bare perusal of it or the evidence show that essential ingredients of the offence alleged are absent or that there are such patent absurdities in evidence that it would be waste of time to proceed further.