TEJ SINGH Vs. NATHILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. is directed against the order of learned judicial Magistrate, Kama dated 19th February, 1981 by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners underT sections 147, 323, 324 and 452 I.P.C.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed an F.I.R. with regard to an incident dated 6th June 1980 in which Final Report was given by the C.I.D. (C.B.), Jaipur. The complainanthowever, filed a complaint in which cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and thereafter,the case proceeded for recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The complainant inspite of giving several opportunities and even imposition of cost of Rs. 40/- neither led evidence nor appeared on 3rd January 1984. The learned Magistrate on 3rd January 1984 recorded that neither the complainant nor his counsel was present. Several opportunities had been given to the complainant and on earlier occasion the case was adjourned on payment of Rs. 40/- as cost as such it was not proper to give any further opportunity for leading evidence to the complainant. The learned Magistrate further observed that the evidence of the prosecution is closed and as no case was made out against the accused persons as such they were discharged of offence under sections 147, 323,324 and 452 I.P.C. The complainant did not file any appeal or revision against the order dated 3rd January 1984. It appears that the complainant again after a period of 7 months filed a fresh complaint on 8th August 1984. The learned Magistrate then recorded evidence of the complainant and his witnesses under sections 200 and 202 Cr. P.C. and passed the impugned order dated 19th February, 1987 taking cognizance against the accused persons.

(3.) The incident relates to 6th June 1980 to which more than 7 years have already elapsed. The earlier complaint filed by the complainant was decided on 3rd January, 1984 on the ground that the complainant had not produced the evidence inspite of several opportunities given to him and the accused persons were discharged. Admittedly, the order dated 3rd January 1984 was not challenged by the complainant and became final. In view of these circumstances there was no justification for entertaining the fresh complaint on 8th August 1984 for the same incident. The earlier complain, was decided on merits because the complainant had failed to produce evidence inspite of several opportunities granted to him and even the cost of Rs. 40/- imposed on the complainant was not paid. The learned Magistrate in these circumstances was not justified in holding a fresh enquiry and record the evidence under sections 200 and 202 Cr. P.C. and to take fresh cognizance in the case by order dated 19th February 1987. As already mentioned above more than seven years have expired and it would be an abuse of the process of the Court to continue such proceedings after such a long time and specially when the earlier complaint had been decided and the accused persons were discharged on 3rd January, 1984. In the result, this petition is allowed, the order of the learned judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kama dated 19th February 1987 taking cognizance against the accused persons is set aside and the proceedings are quashed.