NEEMBA Vs. BHANARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two revisions arising out of the fame matter, and I propose to dispose of them by a single order.

(2.) THE circumstances out of which these revisions arise may be shortly stated as follows. THE opposite party Bhanaram filed a complaint against the petitioners on the 23rd September, 1955, under sec. 452 I. P. C. His allegations were that there was a dispute between him and the petitioners about the possession of a well named Bhimadia and that the petitioners had taken possession of the well on the morning of the 19th September, 1955 (correspoinding to the Bhadwa Sudi 3, Svt. 2012) and that all the eight petitioners armed with lathis came to his house and same evening at about 6 p. m. broke open the main door of the house and hurled out a threat that they would do him to death if he would take any legal proceedings against them as regards the possession of the field in dispute. This complaint was filed in the court of the First Class Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur. It appears that the Magistrate examined the complaint on the 1st November, 1953. Apparently he was not satisfied with the truthfulness of the complaint and so he postponed the issue of process and directed the Station Officer, Mahamandir, to make an inquiry into the matter and submit his report. THE Station Officer submitted his report on the 10th December, 1955. THE report was that it was true that litigation was going on between the parties about the possession of the field in question and that the opposite party had also made an application under sec. 145 Cr. P. C. against the petitioners with respect to the same field and that application was eventually dismissed. THE Police Officer further pointed out that Bhanaram had not made any report in the Police, nor did he file a report in the village Panchayat. He concluded by saying that Bhanaram had filed this complaint against the petitioners merely to harass them, It appears that Bhnanaram, apart from examining himself, produced four witnesses, namely Annaram, Jairam, Kanwar-ram and Hanutram before the Police Officer. THE case then came up before the Magistrate on the 29th December, 1955, and by his order of the same date, he dismissed the complaint under sec. 203 Cr. P. C. THE order passed by the Magistrate is a brief one. He referred to the report of the police officer and thought that a false case had been brought up against the petitioners out of enmity. THE Magistrate also said that the complainant Bhanaram had not advanced any sufficient reason why he had not made the report to the police. He also referred to the circumstances that no injury whatsoever had been caused to the complainant. In these circumstances he came to the conclusion that no further action was necessary and he dismissed the complaint accordingly. THE complainant Bhanaram then went in revision to the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. THE learned Judge by his order dated the 29th June, 1956, set aside the order of the Magistrate and gave the direction that 'he will have the case registered on its original number and after notice to the opposite party proceed with it according to law. ' Earlier in his order he observed that the Magistrate had failed to take into consideration the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Police Officer and that he had not discussed that evidence. THE learned Judge further went on to say that the evidence collected by the inquiring officer had to be thrashed out in court and as it had not been jo thrashed out, it would only be, after a proper consideration of that evidence, that a judicial order could have been made by the Magistrate. According to the learned Judge, the Magistrate had not done so, and, therefore, he set aside the order of dismissal passed under sec. 2 3 and remanded the case back to the Magistrate with the direction which has already been set out above. Revision No. 134 of 1956, has been filed against this order. THEreafter the case went back to the Magistrate and by his order dated the 30th July, 1956, he directed processes to go against the accused, and the case was ordered to be put up on the 7th September, 1956. On the 7th September, 1956, an application was moved on behalf of the accused petitioners that they should not have been summoned, as no case whatsoever had been made out against them. THE Magistrate turned down this application and directed the complaint to produce his evidence on the next date of hearing. Revision No. 135 of 1956, has been filed against the last mentioned order.