ABDUL JALIL KHAN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by one Abdul Jalil Khan for revision of the order, dated 6 September 1935, passed by the District Magistrate, Fatehpur, making a complaint of an offence under Section 172, Criminal P.C., against the applicant. The circumstances giving rise to the application are as follows:

(2.) On 16 August 1935, Mt. Ganga Dei, a Hindu female, went to the police station at Fatehpur to make a report. A number of Hindus and Mahomedans were interested in the proceeding which Mt. Ganga Dei was expected to take. Hanuman Teli, whose relationship with the woman does not appear from the record, reported that the woman had been abducted by certain persons. The woman expressed her willingness to go with Abdul Jalil Khan and declared that she had embraced Islam. The police allowed the woman to go with Abdul Jalil Khan, who was, however, called upon to give an undertaking to produce her before the Magistrate next day (17 August 1935). The woman was not, however, produced on that day by Abdul Jalil, and one Nandan made an application alleging that he was the husband of the woman and that she was being unlawfully detained by Abdul Jalil. He prayed for an order under Section 552, Criminal P.C., being passed. Nandan was examined on oath, and the learned District Magistrate passed an order in these terms: Let an order be issued under Section 552, Criminal P.C., to the police to produce the woman before me in Court on Monday next (19 August 1935) together with the police report. Inform parties also.

(3.) The police could not produce the woman on 19 August 1935 and reported that Abdul Jalil Khan had disappeared with the woman. The case was adjourned to 26 August 1935, but no appearance was made either by Abdul Jalil or the woman. Abdul Jalil however, appeared before the District Magistrate on 6th September 1935, and stated that he had brought the woman on 17 August 1935, to the Court compound, but she slipped out of his custody and could not be traced. The District Magistrate did not believe this story and expressed the opinion that Abdul Jalil was guilty of an offence under Section 172, I.P.C. Accordingly he made a complaint under Section 195, Criminal P.C., for the prosecution of Abdul Jalil under Section 172, I.P.C. Abdul Jalil has applied to this Court in revision challenging the legality of the District Magistrate's action. It is argued that on the facts stated in the District Magistrate's order, dated 6 September 1935, no offence under Section 172, I.P.C., is made out. That section provides: Whoever absconds in order to avoid being served with a summons, notice or order proceeding from any public servant, legally competent, as such public servant to issue such summons, notice or order shall be punished....