INDRASANA KUER Vs. SIA RAM PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Most. Indrasana Kuer lodged a first information report before the police on 24-12-1965 with regard to an incident which took place on 22-12-1965. Her allegations were that on the date of occurrence the opposite party variously armed came to her house, assaulted her and forcibly took her thumb impression on several pieces of paper. When on hulla her brother Jugal and Pujari Satyadeo Ojha along with other persons arrived they assaulted Jugal and Satyadeo as well and forcibly took thumb impression of Satyadeo also on some pieces of paper. They also removed two boxes containing ornaments and cash along with other articles belonging to the informant. It appears that during the course of investigation a protest petition was filed on 4-1-1966. After completion of investigation, police submitted a final report, But on the basis of the protest petition already filed earlier, Most. Indrasana Kuer was examined on solemn affirmation on 4-12-1966. Subsequently, the subdivisional Magistrate took cognizance of the case on 14-12-1966 and the case was transferred to the file of Shri S.L. Singh, Honorary Magistrate, 1st class, Arrah, for disposal. It appears that subsequently the case was transferred to the file of Shri N.K. Singh with first class powers. After some witnesses were examined, it appears a contention was raised on behalf of the complainant that the case was one under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is exclusively triable by a Court of session. After hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate rejected the contention of the complainant by his order dated 1-1-1968. The learned Magistrate framed charges under as. 323, 342, 352, 380 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) only. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed a revision application before the Sessions Judge for directing further enquiry. Having failed there the complainant has filed this revision application.

(2.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the facts stated in the evidence of the witnesses clearly indicate that offences under Sections 386 and 395 of the Code which are exclusively tribable by a Court of session, are made out in this case, and as such the learned Magistrate should have framed charges under those two sections as well, after adopting the procedure prescribed under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The point for consideration, therefore, is whether, on the facts of this case, prima facie offences under Sections 386 and 395 of the Code are made out.

(3.) Section 386 of the Code runs as follows:-