Patna High Court
Sheonandan Mahton vs Emperor on 25 January, 1918
Equivalent citations: 44IND. CAS.119, AIR 1918 PATNA 350
JUDGMENT Roe, J.
1. On the 21st October 1917 the. complainant lodged an information at Chandi Police Station to the effect that he was taking his cattle to plough his rabi lands when he saw the accused's cattle grazing in his paddy fields. He made an attempt to seize the cattle but was attacked by the accused and as a result of the attack received a severe, injury from a garasa. His brother was also beaten with a lathi. The Sub-Inspector in charge of the thana took up the enquiry and on the 9th November submitted a long report, more in the nature of a judicial pronouncement than a statement of the result of a Police enquiry, to the effect that the complainant had no doubt been struck on the head and his brother beaten by two of the accused's party, but that the whole story of the cattle grazing was obviously false. The real quarrel arose from an altercation between the complainant and a woman of the accused's family. This report did not reach the Magistrate until the 15th of November. In the meantime, i.e., on the 13th November the complainant bad filed a complaint before the Magistrate and had been examined on oath and an order made: "Put up at Bihar on the 19th November with Police papers if any." On the 19th November the Police report was considered and the complaint dismissed, and an order recorded on the Police report: 'Enter true Section 324, Criminal Procedure Code, place of occurrence and real subject-matter of dispute changed." The complainant on the 24th November filed a petition before the Sessions Court asking for further enquiry into his complaint. The learned Judge on the 15th December rejected the application on the ground that in view of the Police report it would be idle to order a further enquiry. On the 3rd January an application was made to this Court in revision. It was admitted by the Criminal Bench of which I was a member.
2. In support of the Magistrate's proceedings a judgment has been shown to me in an unreported case decided by my learned brother Mr. Justice Jwala Prasad, in which it is held that under Section 203 a Magistrate is en-titled to dismiss a complaint if after examining the complainant there is in his judgment no Sufficient ground for proceeding, and that there is nothing in Section 203 requiring an enquiry under Section 202. The basis of this decision is that Section 202 deals only with the question of postponing the issue of process, whereas Section 203 deals with the procedure to be adopted in dismissing the complaint. It has been argued before me that if a Magistrate takes it upon himself to postpone the issue of process for any purpose at all. he is required either to enquire into the case himself or to direct a local investigation. The fact that a local investigation had already been made would not affect the proceedings necessary under Section 202, when once process has been postponed. I am myself of opinion that this argument is sound. But it is not in every case that this Court should interfere in revision. If an irregularity in procedure has not resulted in a miscarriage of justice, this Court will not make an order which can result only in harassment to the parties and waste of public time. In a case in which a perfunctory enquiry has been made by the Police and the report considered in a perfunctory fashion by the Magistrate, the Court will interfere and insist upon the provisions of Section 202 being stringently enforced. But where the enquiry has been carefully made and as in this case carefully considered, this Court will exercise its discretion and refuse to re open the matter. I have read the Police report with care and am satisfied that there was no cattle grazing and that, therefore, the whole basis of the complaint was false. In this view of the matter I decline to order any further enquiry.