MST. RADHA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard, During the intervening night of 7th and 8th March, 1993, the occurrence in the present case is said to have taken place wherein injuries on both sides to the participants were caused. Whereas on the side of the petitioner, Ramniwas, Smt. Radha Devi and Dharampal sustained simple hurt with blunt as well as sharp weapons, on the other side, injuries to four persons including Balbeer deceased were caused. Both the parties reported the incident to the Police Station. On the report lodged by the other party, Crime No. 50/93 was registered for offence under sections 302, 307, 324, 323 IPC. Accused in that case i.e. members of the present party, are stated to have since been challenged and being tried for those offences in the court of Sessions. In the present case, Smt. Radha Bai had lodged FIR which registered as Crime No. 51/93 for offences under sections 447 and 323 IPC. After investigation, police submitted a final report under section 169 Crimial P.C. and such final report was also accepted by the Magistrate on 23.11.93.

(2.) It was after the acceptance of the final report in the present case that the petitioner filed a complaint under Sec. 323, 324, 452/326, 325 and 307 Penal Code before the learned Magistrate. On 25.7.94, learned Magistrate appears to have required the counsel for the complainant to address the Court on the point as to whether the petitioner may maintain its complaint in respect of the injuries sustained by her and other members of the party, in exercise of the right of private defence of person by the other side. The petitioner prayed for time to argue the point. Despite repeated adjournments, no arguments in the case appear to have been advanced on behalf of the petitioner and finally, the complaint of the petitioner came to be dissed by the learned Magistrate by his impugned order dated 23.11.93.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial court has given no reasons in the impugned order justifying dismissal of the complaint. It was submitted that the learned Magistrate was bound to entertain the complaint filed by the petitioner and to proceed with the same according to law. The impugned order runs as under-