DR SEEMA Vs. DR ANIL KUMAR BERRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE its impugned judgment dated April 17, 1986 learned trial court dismissed criminal complaint case No. 162/2 instituted before it on December 23, 1985 in clear disregard of the evidence adduced before it by the complainant to prove his prima facie case on the ground I feel that this complaint has been lodged as a counter blast to the action of the accused, who have searched the house of the complainant with the help of local police. It is unbelievable that the accused who were taking recourse to legal proceedings will take the law in their own hands. As such I do not find any merit in this complaint which is dismissed. "In Criminal Revision No. 78/18 of 1986 decided on May 18, 1987 learned lower Appellate Court observed, "6. The illegality of the order is writ large on the face of the order in as much as the trial Magistrate did not appreciate the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses. It is settled law that the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses should be assessed at every stage when the Magistrate has to pass on order. Whereas the facts alleged in the complaint constitute and offence and there are no circumstances apparent in the examination of the complainant and his witnesses such as contradictions, variations or serious and unexplained delay in instituting that the complaint is false, there would be a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused. What has been observed by the trial Magistrate in this case is that persons who had taken recourse to law by. getting the house search of the complainant would not take law in their own hands and this is nothing but a conjecture based on no evidence. It is no ground to dismiss the complaint that there may be some possibility that the accused might have some defence to the complaint. The allegations made in the complaint disclosed the commission of the offence under Section 323 and 452 IPC. These allegations find corroboration from the statement of the complainant himself and his witness Jasbir Singh (PW2) and Ravinder Singh (PW3). In their testimony, there is nothing on record to show that they were in any way telling lies. Prima facie therefore a case is made out against the three accused for their having committed offence under Sections 323 and 482 IPC. There is, therefore, sufficient ground to proceed against the respondent Sunil Kumar Chopra, Dr. Seem and Raj Kumar Apart for offences under Sections 323 and 452 IPC. They are ordered to be summoned to face, trial before the trial Magistrate on the complainant depositing process fee and filing list of witnesses for the prosecution under Section 204 Cr.P.C.

(2.) WITH the above observations, revision petition is accepted. The complainant is directed to appear before Sh. S.K. Sharma, JMIC, Ludhiana successor Court of Sh. P.S. Virk, JMIC, Ludhiana for further proceedings on 2.6.1987."

(3.) IN Crl. Revision No. 856 of 1987 it has been urged that the impugned order dated May 1.8.1987 of the learned lower Appellate Court is wholly without jurisdiction.