SOHAN LAL AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition under Sec. 482, Criminal Procedure Code. the petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 17.1.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Merta City ('the trial Court', hereinafter) taking cognizance for offence under Sec. 500 Indian Penal Code. against the petitioners as well as order dated 23.6.2004 passed by the revisional Court.

(2.) According to facts narrated by the petitioners it is submitted that non-petitinoer No. 2 Ganpat S/o Kalu Ram, b/c Ganchi filed complaint on 10.7.2002 alleging that petitioners being Panch of the Ghanchi Samaj committed offence for maligning the prestige of non-petitioner No. 2. It is submitted that in the complaint filed by him before the trial Court, it was specifically contended that he is member of Ghanchi Samaj and he raised voice against unnecessary expenditure for solemnizing post-obituary rites with big mealings etc. The non-petitioner complainant alleged that since he raised voice for social reformation against alleged onerous conventions the petitioners who are members of the samaj passed resolution for ostracising him from the samaj on 16.6.2002. It was alleged that he protected the son of one Bhagu Ram who was low-paid employee and was directed by the samaj panchas to solemnize the death rites of his late father by holding mrityu-bhoj and manage food for 300 persons of the samaj after death of his father Bhagu Ram. It was also stated in the complaint that on 21.6.2002, the petitioners conducted a meeting of the society at the house of Suwalal and passed resolution to expel the non-petitioner Ganpat from the society and impose fine of Rs. 51,000/- for militating against the decision of the samaj. It is also stated in the complaint by the non-petitioner that he has been threatened by the samaj Panchayat and aggrieved by their action a registered notice was sent to the petitioners, in Para 5 whereof, it is alleged that the petitioners in reply told that they will give reply to the notice that he has not been expelled from the society but they will restrain other members of the society not to associate with him and not to have marriage links with his family and they will also ask the members of the society not to invite him to their social functions. In Para 6, it is specifically alleged that on 9.7.2002 in the night, at about 8 P.M., while he was sitting in an hotel and having tea there, at that time, Banshi Lal, Ram Bux and Sohan Lal came there and asked Iqbal who was sitting beside him why lie was associating with a person expelled from the community. It is further stated that Iqbal was told by those persons that none of the members of the samaj keeps company with him. At that time, it was objected by him. In support of the complaint filed by him for fences under Sections 500, 501, 469 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code., statements of complainant Ganpat, witnesses Shakir Mohammed, lqbal and Raju Borana were recorded by the trial Court and Photostat copy of representation filed by the non-petitioner before the District Collector, Nagaur was also exhibited alongwith postal receipt and A.D. receipts. The copy of notice sent by him to the petitioners Ex-4 was filed alongwith A.D. receipts.

(3.) The learned Magistrate, after taking into consideration to complaint filed by the non-petitioner and statements of the witnesses, proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioners vide order dated 17.1.2004 for offence under Sec. 500 Indian Penal Code., and, process was accordingly issued. Against the order dated 17.1.2004, the petitioners filed revision petition refuting the allegations levelled against them by non-petitioner complainant Ganpat. The petitioners alleged before the revisional Court that the complainant has approached the Court with entirely false story. It was submitted by the petitioners that when the non-petitioner gave them notice It was replied by them and news-item published in the news-paper on 22.6.2004 was also sent with the reply to the notice through their Advocate Madhusudan Joshi. The petitioners submitted with the revision petition copy of news publication published in news-paper Bhaskar on 22.6.2002 and another document which is Photostat copy of communication dated 23.6.2002 sent by the SHO, Police Station Merta City to the Deputy District Collector, Merta was also submitted with the revision petition. It was contended in the revision petition by the petitioners that the complaint is misconceived and false and the petitioners have already openly controverted the charges levelled against them by the complainant in his notice sent to them. It was specifically averred by them before the Revisional Court that they have publicized their counter to the charges levelled against them in the news-paper. However, the Revisional Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners by its order dated 23.6.2004. Hence, this petition under Sec. 492, Criminal Procedure Code.