SHAM LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against an order of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahasu, Sirmur, Bilaspur and Kinnaur Sessions Division. The facts, giving rise to the revision-petition, are as follows: Shri Jagan Nath, a pleader at Solan, had lodged a report at the Police Station, Solan, on 11-7-62, that the petitioner had committed criminal trespass, in his house, on 10-7-62, at about 11.30 P. M., with an intention to beat him and had actually beaten him with a stick. The police registered a case, under Section 452 I. P. C., against the petitioner, on the basis of the above report. On 16-7-62, the aforesaid pleader submitted an application to the Magistrate First Class, Solan, alleging that the police was unduly delaying the completion of the investigation of the case. The Magistrate, First Class, by his order, dated 16-7-62, called for the relevant papers of the case, from the police. The aforesaid order, however, was not readily complied with. Shri Jagan Nath, then, filed a complaint, on 27-7-62, in the Court of the Magistrate, First Class, Solan, making the same allegations which he had made in his report, to the police. The Magistrate examined Shri Jagan Nath and one witness on the same day i. e. 27-7-62 and adjourned the case to 30-7-62 for rcording the remaining evidence. Evidence of one more witness was recorded on 30-7-62. From the evidence recorded, the Magistrate was of the opinion that there was sufficient ground for proceeding, against the petitioner, for offences, under Sections 452 and 323, I. P. C. Accordingly, he ordered that the petitioner be summoned, for 3-8-62. The Magistrate also wrote to the Superintendent of Police, Mahasu District, to issue instructions to the police to submit a chal-lan against the petitioner. The police did not submit a challan but submitted a final report, on 318- 62, requesting that the case may be cancelled. The Magistrate, First Class, Solan, to whom the final report was submitted, passed the following order, on the report, on 3-9-62:

(2.) In pursuance of the order of the Magistrate, the police put up a challan, against the petitioner, on 1-10-62. The Magistrate had been adjourning the complaint of Shri Jagan Nath, during the period 3-8-62 to 1-10-62, on the ground that the challan had not been put up. On 1-10-62, he ordered that the complaint be filed with the challan.

(3.) Both the complaint and the challan were transferred for disposal to Shri B. S. Gautam, Magistrate First Class, Kasumpti. Shri B. S. Gautam proceeded to try the case, under Section 251A, Criminal Procedure Code, on the basis of the challan. He thought that it was unnecessary to take any action on the complaint, in view of the challan, submitted by the police. He framed a charge, for an offence, under Section 452 1.. P. C., against the petitioner. On 17-11-62, an application was submitted, on behalf of the petitioner, for the cancellation of the charge, on the ground that the Magistrate, First Class, Solan, exceeded his jurisdiction in requiring the police to submit a charge-sheet and in proceeding with the case as if it had been instituted on a police report. The application was opposed, on behalf of the prosecution, and it was contended that it was not open to Shri B. S. Gautani to review his previous order, framing charge. Shri B. S. Gautam was of the view that the Magistrate, First Class, Solan, did not act according to law, in asking the police to submit a charge-sheet, after he had taken cognizance of the offences, on the complaint of Shri Jagan Nath, and that the proceedings, taken on the basis of the challan, and the charge, framed, against the petitioner, were without jurisdiction. But Shri B. S. Gautam was also of the view that the contention of the prosecution that he was not competent to review his previous order was also correct. Shri B. S. Gautam made a reference to this Court that the proceedings, taken against the petitioner, on the basis of the challan, may be quashed. This Court rejected the reference, as being incompetent, but indicated that the proper course for Shri B. S. Gautam was either to accept or reject the application dated 17-11-62, of the petitioner and that, thereafter, it would have been open to the aggrieved party to seek his remedy in a higher Court.