HEM SINGH Vs. CHANCHALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against order dated 4.4.2012 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.2, Mandi has declined to issue process to the respondent and dismissed the complaint of the petitioner under Section 500 IPC.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate after recording the statement of petitioner, who appeared as CW-1, proceeded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. He called the report from the Police and thereafter dismissed the complaint. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Magistrate after taking __________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? cognizance has erred in sending the matter to the Police under Section 202 Cr.P.C. for inquiry/investigation. He has relied Tula Ram and others vs. Kishore Singh AIR 1977 SC 2401 wherein it has been held that the Magistrate must follow the requirement of Section 200 of the Code. The petitioner has placed on record copy of order dated 28.10.2011. It reveals that after recording the statement of CW-1, the learned Magistrate has invoked Section 202 Cr.P.C. It does not appear from the material placed on record that the learned Magistrate after filing of the complaint or recording of the statement of CW-1 took cognizance of the case and issued process, he instead proceeded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The petitioner except his self serving statement as CW-1 has not examined any other witness in preliminary evidence to show that his reputation has been lowered in the estimation of others.

(3.) THE issuing of process is a serious matter as has been held by the Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others (1998) 5 SCC 749. There is no material on record that the reputation of the petitioner has been lowered in the estimation of others. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that petitioner has placed on record Mark 'A' copy of gist of statement of respondent before the Court below. This document has not been prima- facie proved, therefore, it cannot be considered. Moreover petitioner has not named any specific person in whose estimation the reputation of the petitioner has been lowered even after statement Mark 'A'. No other point has been urged.