PRITAM CHAND Vs. PREM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the proceedings pending in respondent's complaint before learned Sub-Judge, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Jammu under Ss. 452, 323 and 504 of the Ranbir Penal Code, the petitioners have filed this petition under S. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the proceedings besides setting aside of learned Sessions Judge, Jammu's order dated 20th of March, 2004 whereby he had dismissed petitioners' revision seeking quashing of order dated 24th of December, 2003 of the Judicial Magistrate, Ist class, Jammu, framing charge against the petitioners.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this petition may be stated thus :-Prem Singh, respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners with the allegations that the petitioners, armed with deadly weapons entered the respondent's house to know the whereabouts of his son Gurmeet singh who had allegedly abused Pritam chand while travelling in a bus. Prem singh's reply did not satisfy the petitioners who beat the complainant with Lathies (clubs) and fists, besides hurling abuses giving provocation to the respondent and his family members to commit breach of peace.

(3.) ON appearnce of the petitioners before the learned Judicial Magistrate, the respondent-complainant was directed to lead his evidence. He, besides, appearing as his own witness, produced Balbir Singh and Rajinder singh in support of the complaint. Learned magistrate thereafter closed the evidence and recorded the statement of the petitioners under S. 342 of the Code of Criminal procedure. The case was fixed for hearing the parties on the question as to whether there was any prima facie case for framing charge against the petitioners. It appears from the interim orders on the file of the learned Magistrate that rather than finding out as to whether any prima facie case had been made out against the petitioners, the learned Magistrate had directed the complainant to lead his evidence once again. No evidence was however produced by the complainant and it was later closed by the Court.