JAI RAMDEO Vs. RAMJANAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appln by the complain-ant against the order of the Subdivisional Mag, Arrah, dismissing his complaint under Section 203, Cr. P. C. The Ses J. was moved to order further enquiry, but he declined to do so. It is best to quote the order of dismissal in full as it is a short order:

(2.) The statement made by the complainant on solemn affirmation shows that he alleged that Ramjanam was instigating & the other two accused pushed him & threw him down. The pent of complaint alleged that offences under Section 323, 504 & 379, I. P. C, were committed. Whatever the dispute about the fruit & the mahua tree may be, there is not a word in the order of dismissal of the complaint -- which shows that the Subdivisional Mag at all had in mind as to whether an offence punishable under Section 323, I. P. C. had been committed in view of the assertion of the complainant that he had been thrown down & pushed by two of the accused at the instigation of Ramjanam. I think the complainant is entitled to have his complaint properly considered before it is dismissed under Section 203 of the Code. While no one wishes to place a person accused of an offence to suffer undue harassment, so far as a Ct of law is concerned, its function is essentially to see that cases are disposed of according to law. I have very grave misgiving as to whether It Is right for a Mag to make enquiries in such a fashion that from the record it cannot be said whom he examined & what was the source of his information. The Subdivisional Mag was no doubt entitled to make an enquiry, but he should have made the enquiry in such a manner as to give the complainant full knowledge of the nature of the enquiry & the source of the information which the Mag possessed in order that the complainant may know what exactly the Mag discovered which Justified him in dismissing his complaint. Private enquiries, which may involve extra-judicial in-formation, are dangerous in any event.

(3.) The Mag states that he has cross-examined the complainant. I do not know under what procedure this cross-examination was done when the complainant was making his statement on solemn affirmation in support of his complaint. I do not think the Mag really intended to say that he had done cross-examination in the real sense. He may have put a few questions in order to elucidate the nature of the complaint & from the answers to those questions, the Mag may have come to the conclusion that the dispute about the mahua fruit was of a civil nature. It is difficult, however, to say that the order of dismissal as it stands today at all discloses as to what was the view which tree Mag took concerning that part of the incident narrated by the complainant, namely that he was pushed & thrown down by two at the accused persons at the instigation of Ramjanam. In my opinion, the complaint has not been considered in accordance with law & the order of dismissal must be set aside. I would accordingly send the case back to the Subdivisional Mag for further enquiry when he should deal with the complaint & dispose it of according to law.