RUBY Vs. JASBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is for quashing of complaint, Annexure P-1 and order dated 11.8.1994 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate summoning the petitioners under Section 324/23/506/34 IPC.

(2.) COMPLAINANT , Jasbir Singh son of Sher Singh filed a complaint against accused, namely, Ruby Bobby, (petitioners), Kamaljit son of Kishanjit and Kamaljit son of Mohinderjit Pal, under Section 323/324/504/506 IPC, alleging that on 8.7.1993 at about 5 P.M. all the accused named in the complaint attacked the complainant and his son. Rupinder Singh, and gave injuries to them. In support of the allegations made in the complaint, complainant gave his statement and also examined his son, P.W. 2, Rupinder Singh and P.W. 3 Dr. Malkiat Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Mukerian, who deposed that on 8.7.1993 he medico-legally examined Rupinder Singh and the complainant and found injuries on their person. He also gave details of the injuries in his statement. After recording preliminary evidence and on perusal of the record and on finding that FIR No. 57 dated 10.7.1993 had been registered against the complainant in P.S. Mukerian for which occurrence, there was no mention in the complaint, he thought it necessary to call a report under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and accordingly, S.H.O. PS Mukerian was directed to investigate and make report under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Pursuant to the said order, the police submitted its report, saying that the occurrence as per the complaint had not been substantiated. After receipt of the report, the matter was again considered by the Judicial Magistrate who on the basis of the complaint and preliminary evidence produced by the complainant, summoned the accused under Sections 324/323/506/34 IPC as he was satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out for summoning the accused.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out for quashing the complaint. Reading of order dated 19.2.1994 shows that the learned Magistrate on finding that there were no averments in the complaint with regard to registration of F.I.R. against the complainant, felt the necessity of calling for a report under Section 202 Cr.P.C. so as get facts about the State case. On receipt of the report, the learned Magistrate carefully went through the preliminary evidence produced by the complainant and found a prima facie case to believe that the accused had committed offence under Sections 324/323/506/34 IPC. He also considered the report of S.H.O. under Section 202 Cr.P.C. in which it had been stated that no injuries were caused on the person of the complainant, but on perusal of the medical evidence brought on record by the complainant through the testimony of P.W. 3, Dr. Malkiat Singh who conducted medico-leagl examination of the complainant and his son, the Magistrate was satisfied that the injuries were not self-suffered or could be caused by friendly hand. The detailed order passed by the learned Magistrate shows that he applied his mind to the facts of the case and only on finding a prima facie case against the accused persons, summoned them. The Magistrate was not bound by the report of the police under Section 202 Cr.P.C. because the object of enquiry of investigation under this section is to ensure that no person shall be compelled to answer a criminal charge unless the Court is satisfied that there is a prima facie case for issuing process against the accused person. In Mohammed Atullah's case (supra), the Chief Judicial Magistrate summoned the accused named therein on receipt of report under Section 202 Cr.P.C., though in the (sic) witnesses examined or documents taken had been given. It was in these circumstances, the proceedings were quashed. In the impugned order, the Judicial Magistrate not only took into consideration the report under Section 202 Cr.P.C. but also considered the allegations made in the complaint and the preliminary evidence adduced thereon and therefore, Mohammed Atullah's case (supra) is of no help to the counsel for the petitioners.