VIMLA RAGHAV Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the Order dated 5. 3. 2003 whereby the Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Todabhim had declined to take cognizance against the accused respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for the offences under Section 147, 341, 323, 354, 504, 427, 456 and 149 IPC. THE petitioner has also challenged the Order dated 3. 7. 04 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Hindaun City, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the former order.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Co- ordinator of Balaji Seva Samiti,muradabad. THE Samiti organizes "bhajan" "kirtan" and "ratri jagran" at several holy places. On 5. 8. 2000, the petitioner and members of the Samiti had come to Ghata Mehandipur Balaji and were staying at Gogadhan Dharmshala. While the petitioner was busy in conducting "bhajan" and "kirtan" at Saharan Dharmshala, at about 2. 00 a. m. , some of the girls of the Samiti rushed to the petitioner and informed her that D. P. Singh, Daulat Singh and three other persons in police uniform have entered the Gogadhan Dharmshala. THEy are throwing the belongings of the petitioner and of the Samiti members out of Dharmshala. THEy further alleged that these persons are misbehaving with the ladies who are staying at the Dharmshala. Consequently, the petitioner rushed to the Dharmshala and enquired about the misbehaviour and about the offences committed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and by his companions. Allegedly the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 not only misbehaved with the petitioner, but also declared that the Dharmshala belongs to them. THErefore, she and the Samiti members should vacate the Dharmshala immediately. When the petitioner and her companions refused to vacate the Dharmshala, at the dead of the night, allegedly they were thereatened at gun point. Frightened by this incident, the next day, the petitioner went and met the Superintendent of Police, Karauli and submitted a report to him. Since some of the persons against whom allegations were made were police personnel themselves, the police submitted a negative final report before the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Judicial Magistrate. Subsequently, the petitioner's statement was recorded under Section 200 and the statement of the witnesses, Shivshanker, Shyam Singh and Mansingh were recorded under Section 202 Cr. P. C. Surprisingly, vide order dated 5. 3. 03 while the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against respondents Nos. 2 and 3, he did not take any cognizance against Aram Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Hanuman Singh, the three persons in police uniforms. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the Order dated 5. 3. 03, she filed a revision petition. However, vide Order dated 3. 7. 04, the Addl. Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition and upheld the order dated 5. 3. 03. Hence this petition before us.

(3.) A bare perusal of the petitioner's statement recorded under Section 200 Cr. P. C. clearly reveals that she has stated that Aram Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Hanuman Singh jumped over the wall of the Dharmshala and entered the Dharmshala. Once inside, they not only misbehaved with the girls, but also threw away their belongings to which the girls protested. These persons also proclaimed that the Dharmshala belonged to them. When the guests protested, these culprits assaulted Nimesh, Shivshanker and Jitender. Similarly Shivshanker, clearly states that Aram Singh hit him on his knees with the butt of his gun. Likewise, Shyam Singh, who was the Manager of the Dharmshala and who is a local person, named Aram Singh, Hanuman Singh and Bhanwar Singh in his statement. He has further stated that D. P. Singh and Daulat Singh alongwith these three persons entered the Dharmshala, misbehaved with the girls and assaulted them. Similarly, Mansingh has corroborated the statements of the above named witnesses. These statements are further corroborated by the injury reports of these witnesses. Obviously, sufficient prima facie case exists against these persons for the aforementioned offences.