RAM DHAN Vs. WAZIR CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, praying for quashing of complaint dated 02.09.2002 (Annexure-P-1) titled as Wazir Chand v. Ram Dhan and others, under Sections 382/392/341/506/34 I.P.C., order dated 06.12.2006 (Annexure-P-4), passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, as well as order dated 20.09.2007 (Annexure-P-7), passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, summoning the petitioners in complaint case and all subsequent proceedings arising there from.

(2.) COMPLAINT dated 02.09.2002 (Annexure-P-1) was presented in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtak, by Wazir Chandrespondent against the petitioners for prosecuting them under Sections 382/392/341/506/34 I.P.C. The matter was referred to S.H.O. P.S. Sadar, Rohtak, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of a case and for investigation of the matter. F.I.R. No. 273 dated 16.09.2002 under Sections 382/392/341/506/34 I.P.C. P.S. Sadar, Rohtak, was registered. On completion of the investigation, a cancellation report in the F.I.R. was submitted. The complainant filed a protest petition on notice being issued to him. The Court treated this protest petition filed by the complainant as a complaint and thereafter asked the complainant to lead preliminary evidence. The complainant appeared as P.W.1 and supported his allegations made in the complaint. Apart from his oral evidence, he proved copy of the F.I.R. as Ex. P.1, Jamabandi as Ex.P.2 and Khasra Girdwari as Ex. P.3. Order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, dated 15.03.2002 was also produced before the Court. On consideration of the evidence led by the complainant, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtak, vide his order dated 04.02.2005 (Annexure-P-3), dismissed the complaint. Thereafter, Wazir Chand- respondent preferred a revision petition, which was decided vide order dated 06.12.2006 (Annexure-P-4), by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, wherein the Revisional Court came to a conclusion that the criminal court during inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was only required to see as to whether whatever has been stated by the witness, if believed, would make out an offence or not and the Magistrate could not proceed and adjudicate the matter upon merit of the complaint at the preliminary stage. It further came to a conclusion that the allegations made by Wazir Chandcomplainant, prima-facie made out an offence under Section 392/447/34 I.P.C. against all the respondents/petitioners. Accordingly, order dated 04.02.2005 (Annexure-P-3), passed by the Magistrate was set aside and the Magistrate was directed to proceed further in accordance with law and the complainant was directed to appear before the Magistrate on 11.02.2006.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners submits that no prima-facie case was made out against the petitioners on the basis of allegations made in the complaint or on the basis of evidence, which has been led by the complainant before the Magistrate. He further submits that the Magistrate is required to apply his independent mind on the basis of evidence led by the complainant to come to a conclusion as to whether there is sufficient material on record to proceed against the petitioners. He submits that the evidence, which has been led by the complainant goes beyond doubt to show that the said complaint is false as the same is belied by documentary evidence produced by the complainant himself. He submits that the criminal proceeding, which have been initiated against the petitioners is an abuse of process of Court and has been initiated only to harass, humiliate and malign the petitioners. He, therefore, prays that the Court in the interest of justice must exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of the Court.