BALDEV SINGH Vs. HARJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts of the case, briefI stated, are that Harjinder Singh respondent filed a complaint against Harbhajan Singh, husband of the former's sister, and five relations of Harbhajan Singh for various offences such as sections 452/352/427/323/504/506 etc. of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar. In support of the complaint, statements of Harjinder Singh P.W.-1, Paramjit Singh P.W.-2 and Vinod Kumar P.W-3 were recorded. By order dated February 28, 1989, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class summoned Harbhajan Singh and his brother Dalbir Singh but dismissed the complaint in so far as the remaining persons arrayed as accused were concerned. Aggrieved by the order. Harjinder Singh preferred a revision in the Court of Session. By order dated June 2, 1989. the revision petition was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Jalandhar. It was held that the dismissal of the complaint against the petitioners was altogether arbitrary and amounted to non-exercise of jurisdiction The reason given in support of the above conclusion was that the learned Magistrate failed to mention any reason whatsoever that a prima facie case was not made out against .the remaining accused when the material against all the accused was common. It was therefore, directed that the Magistrate should hold further enquiry and pass a fresh order with regard to summoning of the accused in the light of the observations made in the revisional order. It is the order passed in revision which is being assailed in the present revision petition filed by the four persons arrayed as accused who had not been summoned by the Magistrate.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel, I find that the observations made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge however on wittingly, are one-sided. The effect created by the said observations is that all the six persons arrayed as accused should have been summoned and the decision to drop the complaint against the remaining four was arbitrary. In other words without saying so the learned Additional. Sessions Judge directed the Magistrate to summon the remaining four accused to stand their trial. In my view much could be said in favour of the persons who had not been summoned. As against the husband and his real brother, the remaining accused were far more removed in relationship qua Smt. Surinder Kaur wife of Harbhajan Singh. Secondly there was a strong motive on the part of Harbhajan Singh compared to the rest depending upon his nearness in relationship with Harbhajan Singh. In the facts of the case set up in the complaint there was hardly any independent means of cross-checking the truth or otherwise of the allegations made. A large number of relations of the husband had been roped in. There was admitted background of litigation both civil and criminal pending between the parties. It was thus a case in which the allegations could be made very easily and it was very difficult to show that those allegations are baseless. It is in the totality of facts and circumstances of the case that the Magistrate is supposed to make up his mind whether there was a prima facie case justifying proceedings further against a certain person named as accused. I have no doubt that the learned Magistrate will take into account the observations made above as also by taking all such factors into consideration which are relevant and ought to be taken into consideration. It is obviously not possible to mention exhaustively all such factors. They vary in the facts of each individual case.

(3.) Beyond what has been stated above, there is no merit in the revision petition, which is disposed of accordingly. Let the parties appear before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. Jalandhar, on March 7, 1991, for further proceedings according to law. If the complainant wants to produce any more evidence it shall be recorded by the Magistrate and then he will pass an order according to law and proceed further with the case. Petition disposed of