CHUNNU MIAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE non -petitioner No. 3 Dharam Singh Sagar at the relevant time i.e. in the month of May, 1976 was posted as Dy. Suprintendent of Police, Fatehpur, District -Sikar and later on was selected/appointed as I.A.S. and presently is posted some where in Rajasthan. The non -petitioner No. 2 Shankarlal was then Dy. Superintendent Neem -ka -Thana District Sikar. Balu Ram non -petitioner No. 4 at that time was S.H.O. Police Station Raghunathgarh, District Sikar. Pannalal non -petitioner No. 5 was Reader to non -petitioner No. 3. The petitioner Chunnu Mian had registered an FIR No. 10 dated January 26, 1976 at the Police Station Fatehpur District Sikar. Chunnu Mian was produced for remand before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sikar on May 4, 1976 and he made a statement on oath before the Chief Judicial Magistrate wherein he also stated that accused non -petitioners gave beating to him with cleaves and shoes in Ringas Guest House and he had got himself medically examined. From Ringas Guest House he was taken to Fatehpur Police Station and after being kept there for two days he was beaten by the police people. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after recording the statement on oath of the petitioner Chunnu Mian under his order dated May 3, 1976 ordered that Chunnu Mian be presented to the Medical Jurist that day itself and the medical report be submitted to him the same day before 4 p.m.

(2.) CHUNNU Mian was produced before the Medical Jurist, who on Medical examination found four contusions on his person. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under his order dated May 5, 1976 took cognizance of the offence against the non -petitioners Nos. 2 to 5, under Sections 330 and 323 IPC and because he had taken cognizance of the offence he did not feel it proper to try the case and therefore transferred the case under Section 410(1) Cr.PC to the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate First Class Sikar for trial according to law. Before the learned trial court an application under Section 197 Cr.PC was filed on behalf of the non -petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 but it was dismissed by the learned trial court and the revision too preferred by the accused -non -petitioners did no succed.

(3.) AGAINST the aforesaid order of learned trial court a revision petition was filed before the Sessions Judge, Sikar by the State, non -petitioner No. 1 here in who under his order dated May 19, 1982 allowed the revision petition and the application of the Special Asstt. Public Prosecutor was allowed. The order of the learned trial court was set aside and as a consequence thereof the consent was given to the special Asstt. Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution.