BALBIR SINGH Vs. GURDIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The present revision petition has been filed by Balbir Singh petitioner directed against the order passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baba Bakala dated 6.12.1995. By virtue of the impugned order, the respondent discharged the accused.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that petitioner had filed a complaint against the respondent. He is alleged to have purchased 16 marlas of land from Mohinder Kaur. After constructing the boundary wall, he started living in the said property. It is within village Butala. On 14.3.1994 at 10.00 P.M. the respondents are alleged to have entered his house. They broke open the door of the house. The petitioner was able to identify the respondents with the torch light. Respondent No. 1 Gurdip Singh was the Sarpanch. He was armed with a gun. Jagir Singh was armed with a gandasi, Dpinder Singh was armed with a dang, Kundan Singh was armed with Sabbal, Bhola Singh was armed with a dang while accused Surjit Singh, Bant Singh and Manga Singh were armed with Kahies. It was at the exhorting of Jagir Singh, Gurdip Singh and Dpinder Singh that other respondents picked up their arms. They had shouted that petitioner should be taught a lesson for not casting vote in favour of their party. They removed the bricks of the boundary wall and threatened that they will do away with the petitioner. The possession was delivered to certain respondents namely Bhola Singh, Manga Singh, Gurmail Kaur and Sheero.

(3.) IT is not being disputed at either end that when a complaint is filed and preliminary evidence is recorded, the learned Judicial Magistrate has to apply his mind and arrive at a conclusion if prima facie case is drawn or not. If no prima facie case is drawn, then there are no reasonable grounds to proceed against the accused. However, if the learned court finds that there are reasonable grounds to proceed, in that event the procedure has to be followed. In the present case it was being followed pertaining to trial of warrants cases by magistrate under Chapter XIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was a case instituted other than on a police report. Section 245 Cr.P.C. reads :-