MAHAVEER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant - Petitioner has filed this petition under S.397 read with S.401, Cr.P.C. against the order dated 4-2-1995 passed by Shri. Jagpal Singh learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in criminal revision No.57/91 whereby he accepted the revision petition and quashed the order dated 20-6-1991 passed by the

(2.) The brief facts, relevant for the disposal of this petition, may be stated as follows. The complainant - petitioner filed a private complaint against Smut non petitioner No.2 herein with the allegations that eh relevant time elections in respect of Directors of Rampuria Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Limited were being held. He was one of the candidates. It is alleged that non-petitioner No.2, dead drunk, came there and objected as to why the complainant was sitting in the school building. The complainant explained that since he was a candidate, his presence there was necessary. Thereupon the non-petitioner No. 2 lost his temper and indulged in filthy abuses and started assaulting the complainant and dragged him out of the school building. The complainant wanted to lodge a report at appropriate police station but his report was not taken. He, therefore, filed the private complaint. Before the Court, the complainant examined himself and produced Mahaveer, Ramdas, Balaram and Sukhwant Singh. Thereupon the learned Magistrate found a prima-facie case against the non - petitioner No.2 for offences under Ss.323 and 504, I.P.C. He, therefore, ordered for the registration of the case and summoning non-petitioner No.2 by summons. Feeling aggrieved by the above order of the trial Magistrate, the non-petitioner No.2 filed a revision petition and challenged the cognizance taken by the trial Magistrate on the ground that since at the relevant time he was an observer and such a public servant. No cognizance could have been taken against him in view of the bar contained in S.197, Cr.P.C. the above acts alleged against the non-petitioner No.2 were admittedly committed while non - petitioner No.2 was performing his duty as the aforesaid observer in the capacity of the public servant. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the above argument. He stated that non-petitioner No.2 also lodged a complaint against the complainant and others. He also observed the no injury report was produced in support of the alleged assault. He, therefore, accepted the revision petition and quashed the order dated 20-6-1991 of the trial Magistrate.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the non - petitioners.