NARAYAN PUNJARAM PATIL Vs. SHANKARSINGH MADHALSINGH CHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application to revise the order of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, who has ordered further enquiry into a complaint dismissed under Section 203, Criminal P.C., by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Nagpur. The complainant Shankar singh alleged in his complaint that he had a house in Nimji which he owned and that while he was temporarily in Nagpur the accused, owing to ill-will of the accused, trespassed into his house, assaulted the complainant's mother, drove her out of the house, and committed robbery of gold and silver ornaments and other property. The complainant said that he made several reports to the police but no action had been taken. The reports to the police included an infructuous application to the District Superintendent of Police. The police diary of Kalmeshwar station-house shows that the complainant came on 1st June 1943 and reported that he had got a house at mouza Nimji, that he himself lives at Nagpur and had opened a tailoring shop at Nagpur and that Narayan patel of Nimji asked him to come back to the village and live there otherwise he should vacate the house. "Shankarsingh says," the entry continues : "that the land belongs to him and has been in his possession since the time of his forefathers."

(2.) THEN comes the decision of the police officer: The dispute is about possession of a house. Ordered to lodge a complaint.

(3.) NOW the learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken the view that there may be something wrong with the report because the police have not recorded any statements. It is however not necessary that the police should record any statements at all when making an investigation of this kind and indeed the law does not require any statements to be recorded by the police in an investigation, though no doubt departmental instructions require it in ordinary investigations. The remarks in the report that the facts are known in the whole village and that the matter took place in broad day-light indicate proper enquiry and it is no use to complain that the investigation has been made by a head constable when we know it has been checked up by the Sub-Inspector. The Sub-Inspector's expression "forcible possession" indicates that he is not biassed against the complainant. It is noticeable that in the roznamcha report of 1st of June nothing whatever was said about the gold and silver ornaments and, although it is possible for a policeman to suppress matters related, it is hard to suppose that a detailed complaint regarding robbery of gold and silver ornaments would not be recorded as a first intimation report on the proper form.