KASINATH MANGARAJ Vs. SAROJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision the petitioners challenge the order-dated 13.9.90 passed by the First AddI. Session Judge, Puri in criminal revision No. 179 of 1987 preferred by the present opp. party.

(2.) In order to understand the nature of the impugned order, it is necessary to know the facts, which led to the present situation. The present opp. party at first filed a complaint case bearing I.C.C. No. 133 of 1986 against the present petitioners alleging that on 15.7.86 at about 4 p.m. while he was going towards Jadupur for purchaseing fish, the present petitioners wrongfully restrained him in front of their house, abused him in filthy language and asked him to withdraw the civil suit threatening him with the point of gun. It was further alleged that the present petitioners assaulted the complainant by kicks and blows and the petitioner Kasinath Mangaraj snatched away cash of Rs. 635/- from his pant (trouser) pocket. The complaint petition was filed on 23.7.86 under section 341/323/294/392/34 I.P.C. After the due inquiry cognizance was taken under section 323 I.P.C. and the present petitioners faced their trial for the offence alleged and the complainant tried to substantiate his case by producing two witnesses. The trial court, however, acquitted the accused persons of the charge by its order dated 29.10.87 and observed that it was a fit case to pass an order against the complainant to pay compensation under section 250 Cr. P.C. The trial court passed the following orders: Further it has been found that the accused persons have been falsely prosecuted without any reasonable ground and the accusation was made maliciously and frivolously with an object to harass the accused persons. Complainant is absent. No step has been taken by him. So issue notice to him to appear in person and to show cause as to why he will not pay compensation to each of the accused persons for prosecuting them falsely without any reasonable ground u/s. 250 Cr. P.C. A free copy of the judgment be supplied to the complainant along with notice to show cause in order to afford him an opportunity of showing cause or filing objection, if any. His objection must reach this Court within 10 days (ten days) of his receipt of the notice failing which it shall be deemed that he has nothing to say and order of compensation shall follow without any further reference. Issue notice through Nizarat by Regd. post with AID and through R.I. and put up on 13.11.87 for the appearance of complainant.' The complainant, however, appeared before the court and took adjournment till 30.11.87 for filing the reply. But instead of filling the show cause to the notice, preferred a revision bearing criminal revision No. 179 of 1987 before the First AddI. Sessions Judge, Pun. The learned First AddI. Sessions Judge, Pun, however, passed his order dated 13.9.90 saying that there was no circumstance inviting such action on the part of the trial court and in result, allowed the revision, set aside the order dated 29.10.87 passed against the present opp. party directing him to pay compensation under section 250 Cr. P.C.

(3.) Section 250 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows: If, in any case instituted upon complaint or upon information given to a police officer or to a Magistrate, one or more persons is or are accused before a Magistrate of any offence triable by a Magistrate, and the Magistrate by whom the case is heard discharges or acquits all or an y of the accused, and is of opinion that there was no reasonable ground for making the accusation against them or any of them, the Magistrate may, by his order of discharge or acquittal, if the person upon whose complaint or information the accusation was made is present, call upon him forthwith to show cause why he should not pay compensation to such accused or to each or any of such accused when there are more than one; or, if such person is not present, direct the issue of a summons to him to appear and show cause as aforesaid. It is apparent from the plain reading of subsection (1) or section 250 that if the Magistrate is of the opinion, while discharges or acquits all or any of the accused, that there was no reasonable ground for making the accusation against them or any of them, he may, by his order of discharge or acquittal, if the person upon whose complaint or information the accusation was made is present, call upon him forthwith to show cause why he should not pay compensation to such accused or, to each or any of such accused or, if such person is not present, direct the issue of a summons to him to appear and show cause as aforesaid. In the present case, the trial court has done nothing more than what he is empowered under section 250 Cr. P.C. Sub-section (2) of section 250 Cr. P.C. speaks of the procedure which the Magistrate is to follow after the show cause notice is received by him. The entire import of sub-section (2) of section 250 is to afford complete opportunity to the complainant to show cause against the payment of compensation. It is, therefore, necessary for the present opp. party to appear before the Magistrate and file his show cause as to why the said compensation should not be directed to be paid by him instead approaching the provisional court for agitating g his grievance. As per the specific provision under sub-section (1) of section 250, while recording the order of discharge or acquittal, the Magistrate is competent to issue notice to the complainant, which has been done in the case. Therefore, the action of the First Add Sessions Judge, Pun is not justified in law and without jurisdiction. In view of this, I quash the order-dated 13.9.90 passed by the First AddI. Session Judge, Pun in criminal revision No. 179 of 1987 and allow the opp. party to file his show cause before the trial court within one month from to day. After the expiry of the period allowed for filing the show cause, it will be open to trial court to pass its orders regarding payment of compensation as required under section 250 (2) Cr. P.C.