BALDEV KAUR Vs. HARBHAG KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . - Respondent-Harbhag Kaur preferred a complaint before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib, on 16.11.1995 (Annexure P-1) against Baldev Kaur and Bhag Kaur (petitioners herein) and Chanchal Singh under Sections 323, 324, 447, 448, 452 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The material allegations in the complaint are as follows :-

(2.) THE learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, after examining the complaint and going through the medico-legal report held that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding against the accused under Sections 324, 323, 452/34-I.P.C. and ordered them to be summoned for 24.5.1996 vide his order dated 30.3.1996.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the delay from 27.9.1995, the date of the alleged occurrence to 16.11.1995 in filing the complaint goes to show that the complainant had been procuring some witnesses. The petitioners allege that as per D.D.R. No. 19 dated 5.10.1995 the complainant has alleged that only Chanchal Singh and his son Goldy had attacked them whereas in the present complaint she has substituted the present-petitioners in place of Goldy. Petitioners also allege that vide order dated 1.2.1996 Chanchal Singh was discharged by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib, by recording the statement of the parties. The petitioners have further alleged that no doctor was examined to prove the medico-legal report and that the alleged witness Piara Singh was not examined. The petitioners have alleged that the learned Magistrate has not taken note of the delay and also about the proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. According to the petitioners, no offence is made out against them.