RAVINDER SINGH Vs. SURINDERPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order passed on July 31, 1980, by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Rajpura, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner against the accused-respondents in respect of the offences, under Sections 323/330/342/504/469 and 506, Indian Penal Code, came to be dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code).

(2.) THE complaint was filed on 15.2.1980 making various allegations against the respondents in respect of their having committed the aforementioned offences. The learned Magistrate recorded the preliminary evidence of the complainant and his three witnesses, namely, Bahal Singh, Barjinder Singh and Baljit Singh. The complainant also tendered into evidence documents, Exhibits P.B. and P.C. the copy of the D.D.R. No. 19 dated 1.2.1980 Mark P.3 and copies of the zimni orders, Exhibits P.D. and P.E. and closed his preliminary evidence. The trial Magistrate dismissed that complaint on July 31, 1980, while observing in the following terms :-

(3.) NOW apart from authority, it appears plain from Section 203 of the Code itself that if in his judgment there appears no ground for proceeding with the complaint, the Magistrate is entitled to dismiss the complaint but while doing so as provided therein he 'shall' briefly record his reasons for so doing.; The use of the word 'shall' contemplates mandatory character of the provision and consequently if no reasons are given for dismissal of the complaint, that order would be one in contravention of that provision. The order becomes illegal and not irregular so as to say that it is curable under Section 465 of the Code. I was referred to a case of Chandra Deo Singh v. Parkash Chandra Bose, 1963 S.C. 1430, where the Supreme Court has laid down where the Magistrate has dismissed the complaint without giving reason as required by Section 203 of the Code, the error is of a kind which goes to the root of the matter. It is possible to say that giving of reasons is a pre-requisite for making an order of dismissal of a complaint under Section 2-3 of the Code and absence of the reasons would make the order a nullity. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have further observed that even assuming, however, that the rule laid down in Whillie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P., AIR 1956, SC 116 applies to such a case, prejudice is writ large on the fact of the order. The complaintant is entitled to know why his complaint has been dismissed with a view of consider an approach to a revision Court. Being kept in ignorance of the reasons clearly prejudices his right to move the revisional Court and where he takes a matter to the revisional Court, renders his task before that Court difficult, particularly in view of the limited scope of the provisions of Section 401 of the Code.