MUNSIF ALI Vs. AYUB KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference comes on, the report of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, dated the 10th May, 1963.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to it are that one Ayub Khan filed a complaint for offences under Sections 147, 323, 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code against Munsif Ali and eight others in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jhunjhunu, on 8th september, 1960. On 20th July, 1961 that complaint was dismissed by the Court and the accused were discharged on the ground that the complainant was absent on the previous date of hearing and in spite of a notice having been issued to him, he failed to put in appearance on 20th July, 1961. It was also observed by the court that no case was made out against the accused on the basis of the evidence which was examined by the complainant by that time. It was also noted that the complainant was present at Jhunjhunu and the Reader was sent to call him to the court and even then he did not care to be present or to produce further evidence.

(3.) ON 20th October, 1962, the same complainant Ayub Khan presented another complaint for the same offences, on the same facts against the same nine accused, in the Court of First Class Magistrate, Jhunjhunu. The Magistrate took cognizance of the case and issued processes against the accused. Thereupon, the accused presented an application on 19th January, 1963 requesting the court to dismiss the second complaint. This application was turned down by the court on 18th March, 1963. Aggrieved by this order, the accused presented revision application in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. The learned Judge has reported that although the previous complaint was dismissed by the Magistrate in the absence of the complainant, yet the Magistrate had taken into consideration all the evidence which was produced before it, before passing the order of discharge. In the opinion of the learned Judge, the second complaint was presented after the lapse of a long period of 15 months simply to hold up the proceedings in a cross-complaint which was pending against the comprainant and which had reached the stage of final arguments. The learned Judge has recommended that the order of the Magistrate issuing processes against the accused should be set aside.