DIVENDER SINGH Vs. HARI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition assails the judgement of Sessions Judge, Shimla, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 56-S 10 of 1987 and 59-S 10 of 1988, decided on 20-3-1989. By this decision, the court allowed the revision petition of respondent Hari Ram and set aside the order of trial Magistrate in referring the matter for trial to the local panchayat since the offences qua which cognizance was taken fell within its jurisdiction. The claim of the petitioner in that revision petition that offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code was also made out, was accepted with the suit that the trial of the case stood shifted from the Local Panchayat to the court of judicial Magistrate, Chopal. This is how the matter has been brought to this court.

(2.) Briefly, the case is that on 28-7-1986, the complainant preferred a complaint under Sections 354, 323 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chopal. It was sent to the police for investigation and report under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal procedure. The police registered a case against the petitioners under Sections 323, 354 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code on 30-7-1986, on which date the complaint had been filed in the court. After the investigation, the police recommended action against the petitioners for offences under Sections 354, 506, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations were that the petitioners went to Government High School, Marawag, where Kumari Veena the daughter of the complainant, was studying in tenth class. During the recess time, in pursuance of their plan, the petitioners caught hold of Kumari Veena. She was dragged and then beatings with slaps, kicks and fists were given by Devinder Single and Prem Chand snatched her watch. The petitioners were summoned and the court passed the following order on 17-9-1987 :

(3.) The complainant felt aggrieved by this order. He moved a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Shimla. After hearing parties, the revision petition was allowed and it appears from the order that the Sessions Judge was influenced by the fact that the trial Magistrate, while passing the order on 17-9-1987, did not mention how the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, was not made out from the police report and the documents filed therewith and no reasons to that effect had been given and in view of the documents, a clear-cut case under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the petitioners.