SOHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, with a recommendation that the charges framed against all the ten accused petitioners Sohan, Rameshwar, Shanker, Dhanna, Ram Chander, Ghisa, Jagan Nath, Madan Lal, Gopi and Basanti son of Jadab Chand by the First Class Magistrate, Jahajpur, vide his order dated 29th May, 1973, may be quashed and the learned Judicial Magistrate may be directed to record the evidence of the complainant's witnesses afresh and then to proceed in accordance with law.

(2.) THE reference arises under the following circumstances: - Jagroop and his son Shanker filed a complaint against the ten accused-petitioners and one Mat. Basanti daughter of Ram Chander under sections 452, 148, 324, 323 and 500 I. P. C. in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Mandal-garh, on 11th September, 1966. THE Sub-Divisional Magistrate upon receiving the complaint examined Jagroop complainant on oath and made a preliminary inquiry into the matter under section 202, old Cr. P. C. with a view to ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint. THE complainant examined Ladu Ram, Khurshid Mohammad and Bhagirath in the inquiry. Relying upon the statements of the complainant and his witnesses, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate came to a conclusion that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against seven accused only namely, Sohan, Rameshwar, Shanker, Dhanna, Ram-Chander, Ghisha and Jagan Nath under sec. 323, I. P. C. So he issued processes against the aforesaid seven accused for the offence punishable under section 323 I. P. C. THE Sub-Divisional Magistrate, however, did not pass any order regard-ing the remaining accused, namely, Madan Lal, Gopi and Basanti son of Jadab Chand. Neither it was ordered that the complaint be dismissed against the aforesaid four accused, not was it directed that processes be issued against them also under section 323, I. P. C. THE Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mandalgarh, recorded the evidence of some of the complainant's witnesses in the presence of the seven accused. THEreafter the case was transferred from his court to the the court of the First Glass Magistrate, Jahajpur, for trial before whom the complainant filed an application on 28th July, 1972 that a prima facie case was disclosed against four accused, namely Madanlal, Gopi, Basanti son of Jadab Chand and Mst. Basanti d/o Ram Chander also from his evidence and that of his witnesses and so charges may be framed against all the eleven accused persons. THE First Glass Magistrate, Jahajpur, accepted the application filed by the complainant and issued processes against Madan Lal, Gopi and Basanti son of Jadab Chand vide his order dated 29th January, 1973. Later on, when the aforesaid accused appeared before him in response to the summonses issued to them, the learned Magistrate perused the evidence adduced by the complainant in their absence and came to a conclusion that there were good grounds for presuming that all the accused had committed offences which he was competent to try and which in his opinion could be adequately punished by him He, therefore, framed charges against Sohan Lal, Rameshwar, Gopi, Shanker, Ghisha, Jagan Nath Ramchander and Basanti son of Jadabchand under secs. 147, 148, 452, 323/149 I. P. C. Dhanna accused was charge sheeted for the offence under secs 147, 148, and 323/149 IPC while charges under secs. 148, 324 and 452 I. P. C. were framed against Madanlal accused. As no primafacie case was made out against Smt. Basanti accused, the learned Magistrate passed an order of discharge in her favour. Aggrieved by the framing of the charges, all the ten accused persons filed a revision petition in the court of the Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. THE Sessions Judge perused the record, heard the parties and came to a conclusion that the learned Magistrate committed a glaring error in framing the charges against Madanlal, Gopi and Basanti son of Jadab Chand on the basis of the complainant and his witnesses which was not recorded in their presence. THE learned Sessions Judge, therefore, considered it to be a fit case for making a reference to this court for quashing the charges framed not only against these three accused but against other accused persons also.