JAGIA DEVI Vs. SANT LAL RAJAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three applications have been heard together and the same judgment shall govern them all.

(2.) Criminal Revision application No. 1367 of 1971 is directed against an order, dated 7-7-71, by which the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Patna City took cognizance of offence;; under Sections 392, 323, 144 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) on receipt of report of the Sarpanch, Gram Kutcherry, Fatehpur and transferred the case to Sri A.A. Kumar Sinha, Munsif Magistrate 1st class for disposal. It appears that on 28-6-71 Indreshwar Pd. Singh, a school teacher filed a petition of complaint before the Sarpanch alleging that when he reached the Darwaja of the petitioner No. 1 Ramchandra Singh while returning from school, petitioner 1 abused him and asked him not to proceed and at the order of petitioner No. 3 (Ramnaresh Singh) other petitioner fisted and slapped him. Petitioner No. 2 (Sarbeshwar Singh) snatched away Rs. 22/~ from his upper pocket. Petitioner No. 4 (Girija Singh) snatched away towel from him. Petitioner No. 1 was armed with a dagger and petitioner 3 was armed with a stick. There is a note, dated 28-6-71 made by the Sarpanch on the complaint petition that action would be taken after making inquiry. Inquiry report of the Sarpanch, dated 6-7-71 is to the effect that the allegations were true but the case was not within the competence of the Bench of the Gram Cutcherry and therefore, a request was made in the report that the case should be tried in court. The complaint petition together with the inquiry report was sent to the Subdivisional Magistrate. The Sub-divisional Magistrate by his order, dated 7-7-71 took cognizance of offence under Sections 323, 392 and 144 of the Code and transferred the case to the Munsif Magistrate Sri A.A. Kumar Sinha, for disposal. It is against this order that this revision application has been filed.

(3.) Criminal Revision Application No. 1446 of 1870 is directed against the order dated 14-10-69 by which the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Chapra took cognizance of offences under Sections 379 and 324 of the Code, against the petitioners. It appears that on 9-9-69 opposite party Kapal Singh filed a petition of complaint before the Sarpanch, Atta Nagar Gram Cutcherry alleging that at about 7 P.M. on 9-9-1969 the petitioners were purchasing property from a Dome. When the complainant protested the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly with the common object to assault the complainant. Petitioner Dharmnath attempted a knife blow on the complainant's neck which however, hit the complainant above his eyes, petitioner Ram Dayal Sah took out a sum of Rs. 115.00 from complainant's pocket. When witnesses assembled petitioners left the place of occurrence. On receipt of this complaint the Sarpanch examined the complainant on oath on the same day at about 8 P.M. and directed the complainant to furnish an injury report from a doctor on the following day. Injury report was furnished. On 1-9-69 after examining the witnesses the Sarpanch found that the allegations made out offences under Sections 379, 324, 323 and 148 of the Code and therefore, the case was beyond the competence of the Gram Cutcherry. He therefore, directed the record of the case to be forwarded to the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Chapra, Sadar for taking cognizance and transferring the case to another Magistrate for disposal. The record of the case along with the inquiry report was made over to the complainant for being presented before the Subdivisional Magistrate. On 11-9-69 complainant opposite party presented before the sub-divisional Magistrate the record of the case made over to him by the Sarpanch with a petition requesting the subdivisional Magistrate to peruse the report of the sarpanch and transfer the case for trial to any Munsif Magistrate. The subdivisional Magistrate, by his order, dated 14-10-69 took cognizance and transferred the case to a Munsif Magistrate for disposal. It is against this order that this Criminal Revision application has been filed. It may be mentioned that the petitioners had filed a Revision Application before the Sessions Judge, Saran against the order of the Subdivisional Magistrate, dated 14-10-69 but the learned Sessions Judge, by his order, dated 1-6-6-70 refused to make a reference to this Court.