ASHOK JAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint u/s 203 Crimial P.C. The complaint had been filed by the petitioner against the accused non-petitioner No.2 to 9. In dismissing the complaint the learned Magistrate, in my opinion, has committed more than one illegality. The first is that the petitioner has filed not one but two complaints : (1) Private complaint no. 4/89 against three persons Sawai Singh, Amiruddin and Bhanwar Singh u/s 342 I.P.C. and other complaint (2) was filed by the petitioner against Kamal Kishore, Liyaqat Ali, Laxman Ram, Sukha Ram and Achal Singh, it will, therefore, be clear from the two complaints that these accused persons were not common. In complaint no. 4/89 besides Sawai Singh two more persons Amiruddin and Bhanwar Singh, S.H.O. and A.S.O. respectively, were the accused persons where as in the other complaint they were not the accused persons.

(2.) There is no Law, and none has been brought to me notice by either of the learned counsel for the parties that in a case where the accused persons are not common & in a case where the incident also do not appear to be common, the learned Magistrate has any power to consolidate the two complaints & make an enquiry u/s 200 & 202 as if the complaints were one. The other illegality which the Magistrate has committed is that he made one enquiry in both the cases. The third illegality which he has committed is that he considered the evidence at that stage as if he was finally disposing of the case.

(3.) I will, therefore, allow the revision petition, set aside the order of the learned Magistrate, direct the learned Magistrate to separate both the complaints, then make a fresh enquiry in accordance with law and then pass proper orders as to whether any case of issuing process is made out or not.