VEENA SHANNA Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Veena Sharma, (hereinafter referred to as the "petitioner") has preferred this revision petition against the judgment passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan dated 29 -3 -1994, whereby after recording preliminary evidence, trial court has dismissed the complaint filed by her under Section 323/342/504/506/218/219 read with Section 109 of the I.P.C. Two reacons were assigned by the trial Court while passing the aforesa id order, namely, that the complaint is barred by limitation and that the court at Nalagarh has no jurisdiction to lake cognisance I against the accused as the jurisdiction specifically lies with the court at Una.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In order to properly appreciate and understand the respective submissions, brief facts need to be referred to. According to petitioner, respondents No. l and 2, who are police officials and were posted at the relevant point of time in Una District during the course of investigation of FIR No.200/X8 registered at Police Station Una, under Section 363/365/34 of the I.P.C. visited her house at Village Nangal Nihal, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan on 29.6.1988 accompanied by other L police officials and according to her, she and her mother were abused, beaten, I intimidated and she as well as her mother were arrested. According to petitioner, she had informed both respondents No. l and 2 the police officials that I she is a minor and her age is 17 years, which fact according to the petitioner had been taken down by both of them in the records but despite that she I along with her mother lima Devi were arrested at the instance of respondents 1 No. 3 to 6 and were put up in jail and they were bailed out in the evening of I 30 -6 -1988. She further stated that after the completion of investigation of FIR I No.200/1988 when challan was put up on her application it was ordered that I since the petitioner was a juvenile offender under Section 2(4) of the Juvenile I Justice Act. 1986, proceedings against her were ordered to be dropped. However, while doing so liberty was reserved to the prosecution to file a separate I challan before Juvenile Court at Una. Challan in fact was put up and finally by I means of order dated 5 -12 -1992, the petitioner was discharged by the Juvenile I Court. A copy of the order passed by the Juvenile court is at page 29 of the I file whereas the copy of the order accepting the plea of the petitioner dated I 31 -8 -1992 passed by Judicial Magistrate (2), Una is also there on the file at I pages 45 to 46. The fact of the petitioner along with other having been arrested I is also prima facie established from the report submitted by the police for I obtaining judicial remand and the copy of such report is at pages 43 and 44 of I the file of the trial Court.

(3.) Case of the petitioner further as revealed from her preliminary evidence recorded by the trial Court is that respondents No .l and 2, who were 1 public sen1 ants and were charged with preparation of investigation record, both I of them prepared the same in the manner which they knew to be incorrect with I the intent that they will thereby cause injury to the petitioner. In addition to I this, here case further was that respondents No. l and 2 being public servants maliciously produced in judicial proceedings report by not showing her minor deposit having been informed at the time of her arrest by the petitioner and were guilty of offences under Section 218 of 219 besides Sections 323, 342. 504 and 506 of the I.P.C. In addition to her own statement, petitioner had got statement of K one Shanti Sarup recorded in preliminary evidence. When both the statements arc K read together prima facie case appears to have been made out.