RAMJEEVAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant-petitioner, Ramjeevan, has challenged the order dated 13.06.2003 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa whereby the learned Judge has quashed and set aside the order dated 03.01.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bandikui wherein the learned Magistrate had taken cognisance for offences under Sections 143, 323 & 504 Penal Code against the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 6.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 27.09.2000, the complainant, Ramjeevan, had filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate. According to him, on 26.09.2000, around 9:00 PM to 10:00 PM, while he was sitting inside his house, he heard some noises outside the house. When he came outside the house, he found the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 6 armed with lathis & sticks (...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...). He also discovered that they were taking apart his tractor which was parked in front of the house. When he protested it, they chased him inside the house and assaulted him with kicks & lathis. After recording the statements of the complainant and his witnesses, vide order dated 03.01.2003, the learned Magistrate took cognisance against the accused-respondents Nos.2 to 6 for offences as aforementioned. Since the accused-respondents were aggrieved by the cognisance order, they filed a revision petition before the learned Judge. Vide order dated 13.06.2003, the learned Judge quashed and set aside the cognisance order dated 03.01.2003. Since the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.06.2003, he has filed the present petition before this Court.

(3.) Ms. Manju Meena, the learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has given three reasons for quashing and setting aside the cognisance order : firstly, there is animosity between the complainant and the accused-respondents; secondly, the complainant has not submitted any injury report to corroborate the fact that he was physically assaulted by the accused-respondents; thirdly, the complainant does not tell the court as to what insulting words were used against him, and yet a cognisance for offence under Sec. 504 Penal Code has been taken against the accused-respondents. According to the learned counsel, at the stage of taking cognisance, the trial court is concerned only with the existence of a prima facie case. The statements of the complainant and his witnesses clearly make out a prima facie case against the accused-respondents. Moreover, it was not for the learned Judge to find fault with the statements of the complainant and his witnesses at the initial stage. Merely because the injury report has not been submitted, it would not dilute the veracity of the statement made by the complainant and his witnesses. Thus, the learned Judge was not justified in shifting through the evidence and concluding that no prima facie case is made out against the accused-respondents. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the learned Judge has over-stepped his jurisdiction.