CHATUR SAO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 19.6.1997 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate framed charge underSections 406/506/448/341/34 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE short facts giving rise to this application is that the informant has got a grossry shop at Bherno from where petitioner No. 1 used to obtain commodities on credit and a sum of Rs. 3549/ - was due and the said amount was repeatedly demanded by the informant but the petitioner No. 1 was not paying the same. It is further alleged that the petitioner No. 1 came in front of the shop of the informant when the son of the informant demanded the dues and thereafter the petitioner No. 1 become angry and used filthy language and started assaulting, petitioner No. 2 to 6 who are the sons of the petitioner No. 1 also came there and started assaulting the informant and his son. It is further alleged that the accused -persons also threatened to set fire the jeep of the informant. Accordingly the first information report was lodged under Sections 341/323/404/506/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge -sheet. Accordingly the cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla on 6.12.1996. All the accused -persons/petitioners appeared and the after charge under the aforesaid offences were framed against the accused -persons which was read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty. One supplementary affidavit has been filed stating therein that in view of the order dated 15.1.1998 the petitioner made attempts to meet theopposite party No. 2 for compromise but he did not like to sit for the same.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned A.P.P. contended before me that there is no illegality in the impugned order to be interfered as the learned Magistrate, after being satisfied about the prima facie case, framed the charge against the petitioners.