MURARI Vs. KUMARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision by the four accused persons is directed against the Sub -divisional Magistrate's order dated 14.3.1971 whereby he has taken cognisance of the offences under Sections 448, 426, 147 and 148, Indian Penal Code against them and transferred the case to another Magistrate for disposal where it is said to be still pending.

(2.) ON 11.11.1970 the complainant Kumari Devi (opposite party here) filed a petition of complaint in the Court of the Sub -divisional Magistrate. In that, she alleged that on 8.11.1970 at about 4 P.M. these accused persons along with several others came to her house armed with deadly weapons like bhala, garasa, lathi etc. and abused her and her husband and further demolished her house completely. When she objected they all ran to, assault her and she fled away to save her. She further alleged that after they had gone away from the place she reported the occurrence to the police station concerned but she was not heard. On the next day, she also went and reported the matter to the Superintendent of Police, but he also did not take any action. Thereafter, this complaint. In the complaint petition she cited the names of six persons who, according to her, had witnessed the occurrence and would be able to prove it in courts.

(3.) ON receiving the above complaint, learned Sub -divisional Magistrate examined the complainant on solemn affirmation on that very day and referred the matter to Mr. S.N. Ahmad, Magistrate, First Class, for enquiry and report. In course of the enquiry Mr. Ahmad examined four witnesses and. sent his report dated 3.2.1971 holding that on those evidence he was satisfied that a prima facie case under Sections 448, 426, 147 and 148, Indian Penal Code -has been made out against the accused persons and they should be put to trial. After perusing this enquiry report, learned Sub -divisional Magistrate felt satisfied that a prima facie case was made out against the accused persons. Accordingly, he took cognisance of the offences under these sections against these petitioners.