INAYAT HUSAIN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are we applications for the revision of certain orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patehpur, on 3 December 1927. The facts are that a zamindar, Khan Bahadur Inayat Husain, is said to have sent certain servants of his to fetch labourers from the complainant. The servants are said to have gone and fetched the labourers forcibly. This led to a certain amount of violence and fighting.

(2.) The police investigated the case and challaned the servants (who are the applicants in this Court) under S-147/452, I.P.C., but they did not challan the zamindar Khan Bahadur Inayat Husain, nor did they challan anyone for dacoity under Section 395, I.P.C. The complainants also made a complaint to the Magistrate charging the applicants with dacoity in addition to the offence mentioned, and since it was alleged that in the course of the fight one of the accused seized a golden chain from the neck of one of the complainants, they also charged Inayat Husain with abetment of causing simple hurt. The Magistrate took some evidence under Section 202, but found the case insufficiently proved and probably false, against Inayat Husain, and dismissed the complaint against him under Section 203, Criminal P.C. He also disbelieved the story about seizing the gold chain (as the police had done) and refused to proceed further with the charge of dacoity. In short the Magistrate found that the Police were right in refusing to prosecute Inayat Husain, and in prosecuting the others on charges under Section 147/452, I.P.C. only.

(3.) The complainants then applied in revision to the learned Sessions Judge who passed the orders complained of. The first order is that Khan Bahadur Inayat Husain be summoned to answer the complaint;. The learned Sessions Judge apparently takes the view that if any person makes a complaint against an accused person that the Magistrate is bound to summon the accused if there is any evidence to support the complaint even though the Magistrate finds the evidence unsatisfactory and believes the complaint to be false.