RAGHUNATH & OTHERS Vs. GHISA RAM & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under section 482 Cr. P. C. filed by Raghunath. Moul Chand, Nathmal and Bhura, petitioners for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against them in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to this application may be stated as follows . Ghisa Ram and Mukna Ram complainants filed a Complaint against 12 persons under section 302. 147, 148, 109 and 114/34, read with 120 Indian Penal Code It was alleged in the Complaint that the accused persons had formed an unlawful party with the help of Dayala, Jivana and Misriya Daroga of village Sabalpur with a common object to kill Bhagirath Ram. who was the real uncle of Ghisa Ram complainant No. 1. In prosecution of the said common object the accused persons encircled Bhagirath Ram on 12-12-1974 at about 5 or 5.30 p. m. while the later was going to the house of Hanuman Purohit and caused simple as well as grievous injuries to his head and other parts of his body with lathies as a result of which he died an instant death. The first Information Report of the incident was lodged by Mukna Ram complainant with the Dy. Superintendent of Police. Makarana through telegram on 12-12-1974 at 11 p. m. The Police registered a criminal case under section 302 Indian Penal Code and made the usual investigation. The result of the investigation was that the police filed the charge-sheet against Dayala, Jivana and Misriya accused only in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar, who committed them to the court of Sessions for trial under section 302 Indian Penal Code At the time when the charge-sheet was filed against Dayala, Jivana and Misriya accused, Mukna Ram presented an application to the Judicial Magistrate that cognizance should also be taken against the pensioners because a prima facie case for the offence of murder was made out against them also. The learned Magistrate passed an order on that application that cognizance could only be taken against the petitioners after recording the evidence of the witnesses in the court. The complainants therefore filed a Complaint against the petitioners on 29-4-1975. The learned Judicial Magistrate examined the complainants on oath, postponed the issue of process against the petitioner and enquired into the case himself for the purpose of deciding whether or not there were sufficient grounds for proceeding. The complainants produced their witnesses namely Dr. Manohar Lal, Amar Singh, Rajender Singh, Hema Ram and Bhanwarlal. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after considering the statements on oath of the complainants and their witnesses, was of the opinion that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioners. He consequently issued a bailable warrant of Rs. 100 against each of the petitioners to secure their attendance in the court. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that the impugned order has resulted in an abuse of the process of the court and that no prima facie case for the offence of murder or of any other offence is made out against the petitioners.

(3.) I have gone through the record and heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Dhiraj Kumar and Mr. Bhim Raj appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. D.K. Soral for the non-petitioners and Mr. G A. Khan for the State. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Judicial Magistrate committed an error in taking cognizance of the offence of murder against the petitioners on a joint Complaint filed by Ghisa Ram and Mukna Ram. According to the learned counsel, the Code of Criminal Procedure does not contemplate a joint Complaint by two or more persons. This contention has no force because there appears to be no reason why two or more persons having knowledge of commission of an offence cannot set the law in motion by way of a joint Complaint. No particular form in which a Complaint should be made is prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is sufficient if certain allegations are made before the Magistrate which if proved, would constitute an offence. There is nothing in section 2 clause (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to show that a Complaint must be made by one person only. Hence no fault is found with the Complaint merely because it has been made and signed by two persons namely Ghisa Ram and Mukna Ram. It will not be out of place to mention here that the learned Magistrate has examined both the complainants on oath in this case and in this manner there is substantial compliance with the requirements of law. It was further contended on behalf of the petitioner that no other court except the Court of Sessions, to which accused Dayala, Jivana and Misriya have already been committed for trial, can issue process against any person, who may later on be found to be involved in the transaction and that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence of murder against the petitioners. This contention has no force because a Sessions Court cannot add these petitioners as accused persons in the absence of an order of commitment by the duly empowered Magistrate, although it has session in a ease against Dayala. Jivana and Misriya accused. There is nothing in section 190 Cr. P. C. which precludes a Judicial Magistrate from taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioners, who are later on involved in the transaction in spite of the fact that they were not originally charged with any offence by the Police.