BHIMSEN Vs. DIWAKAR DUTT BHARDWAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint was filed in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh by petitioner Bhimsen against the non-petitioner Diwakar Dutt, Executive Engineer, Feeder Division, C.A.D., R.C.P. Hanumangarh Junction for the offences under sections 323, 504 Indian Penal Code on 12.7.82. The allegations in the complaint were that the non-petitioner Executive Engineer had passed an order for opening a Khala in the Khatedari land of the petitioner. The application for copy was filed on 28.5.82 and an appeal was preferred before the Superintending Engineer but the non-petitioner by his influence restrained the Superintending Engineer from passing stay order. That, again on 7.7.82 petitioner filed an application for another copy of the order passed by the Executive Engineer but the copy was not given rather he orally directed that copy may not be supplied to him. That, on 9.7.82 the petitioner filed an application before the non-petitioner to pass an order that copy will not be given, in case he does not desire the issuing of the copy. It was alleged in the complaint that, thereupon the non-petitioner got enraged and gave first blows to the petitioner and turned him out of the office. In support of the averments in the complaint, the petitioner examined himself and two more witnesses viz. Phusaram and Devilal. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 2.8.82 rejected the complaint under section 203 Criminal Procedure Code. Being aggrieved by that order the petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Notice was issued to the non-petitioner at the admission stage. Mr. Sandhu put in appearance on behalf of non-petitioner No. 1.

(2.) I heard Mr. B.R. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sandhu learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 1 Mr. Arora streneously contended that when there were two supporting witnesses to the evidence of the complainant, the learned Magistrate should not have rejected the complaint. According to him at that stage the Court was only to see whether a prima facie case was made out or not and it was not the concern of the Court to go into the depth of the matter so as to conclude whether it was a fit case for conviction or not. To substantiate has case Mr. Arora placed reliance on the principle enunciated in Nirmaljit Singh Hoon appellants v. The State of West Bengal and others, respondents.

(3.) Mr. Sandhu submitted that there was no question of any refusal of the issuing of copy to the petitioner as the same had been given to him on 2.6.82, as is evident from the certified copy of the abstract of the concerned register which have the signatures of Bhimsen petitioner. Mr. Sandhu further contended that when there was allegation for offence under section 323 Indian Penal Code, some medical certificate was expected but none had been filed.