Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ramesh Kumar vs Smt. Sushila Srivastava on 13 August, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997CRILJ282
ORDER S.C. Mital, J.
1. This revision petition arises out of the order dated 14-8-1986 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu in Criminal Revision No. 86/ 85. whereby, the order dated 20-11-1984 of learned Judicial Magistrate, Churu was set aside and the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 353 and 504, IPC was dismissed.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the petitioner Ramesh Kumar filed complaint on 30-6-1983 against the non-petitioner under Sections 353, 332, 323 and 504, IPC with the allegations that on 2-6-1983 at 11.30 a.m. he was called by the non-petitioner in the office and immediately started abusing him and said that your father had filed several complaints against her and she will not relieve him. She caught him and pushed down. Shri Ramchandra S/o Shri Kali Charan Sharma, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Churu and Shri Kijevaram, Junior Lecturer Govt. Higher Secondary School, Churu who were sitting in the office saw this incident and he was picked up by them and sent out of the office. Shyam Lal was also present at that time. S.H.O., Churu and S.D.M., Churu same with the force and the matter was reported to them but they did not take any action. On the other hand the petitioner was arrested by them. He also gave a report to S.H.O. but he refused to register the same under the influence of S.D.M. Churu. The petitioner is employee in the non-petitioner's office. It has been also stated in the complaint that the petitioner's father had sent complaints about the work and behaviour of the non-petitioner and, therefore, the non-petitioner started harassing the petitioner.
3. Learned Judicial Magistrate recorded the statement of petitioner Ramesh Kumar and the witnesses Hira Lal, Ram Chandra and Shyam Lal under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. and by the impugned order took cognizance for the offences under Sections 353, 504, IPC and ordered to issue summons. The non-petitioner preferred revision petition against the said order of Learned Judicial Magistrate and revision petition was accepted dismissing the complaint against which now this revision petition has been filed in this Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. None appeared on behalf of the non-petitioner No. 1. It has been argued (sic) exceeded in exercising its powers while hearing the revision petition by appreciating and scrutinising in detail the testimony of the witnesses recorded under Section 202, Cr.P.C. Learned Judicial Magistrate after perusing the statements found sufficient grounds against the non-petitioner for taking cognizance for the offence under Sections 353 and 504, IPC and there was no valid reason to interfere with the same. It has been contended that the learned Sessions Judge made a complete reappraisal of the evidence on facts. There was no illegality committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and the findings were not against the evidence on record and, therefore, there was no justification to disturb the order passed by the learned Magistrate, Churu. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order and submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has given reasoning and found the testimony of the witnesses and the circumstances which did not constitute any offence under Sections 353 and 504, IPC. On taking statements on its face value, the essential ingredients of the above offences are not made out so the cognizance taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate was bad in law and, therefore, it has been set aside.
5. I have considered the rival contentions and I have perused the statements of the petitioner and the witnesses got examined by him under Section 202, Cr.P.C. Section 203, Cr.P.C. provides that if after considering the statement on oath of the complainant and witnesses the Magistrate is of the opinion that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding then the complaint shall be dismissed by him and for the same reasons shall be recorded. Under Section 204 if the Magistrate finds sufficient ground for proceeding then he shall take cognizance and issue summons for the attendance of the accused in a summon case and may issue warrant or if it is found fit may issue summon for the appearance of the accused. After recording the evidence under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C., the Magistrate should only see that whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding with the complaint or not. At that stage, the accused has no locus standi though he may remain present either in person or through a counsel or agent to have information about the proceedings. But, he has no right to take part in the proceeding and the Magistrate also has no power to permit him to do so. The scope of the inquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. is limited. It is not required to see at that stage about the adequacy of (he evidence that is to be seen after completing the trial, h is also not relevant that what is the defence of the accused. In AIR 1963 SC 1430 : 1963 (2) Cri LJ 397 (Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose alias Chabi Bose) the Apex Court has laid down the law and scope of an inquiry under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. Therefore, the Magistrate has only to satisfy that whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed further on the basis of testimony of the witnesses recorded in the inquiry. A detail discussion on the merits of the ease is not warranted. Similarly the scope of the revisional jurisdiction is also very limited and under these powers a detail scrutiny and appreciation of the evidence is not permissible under the law. This has been held in AIR 1978 SC 1568 : 1978 Cri LJ 1687 (Hareram Satpathy v. Tikaram Agarwala).
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Sessions Judge has exceeded its revisional powers by detail discussion and meticulous appreciation of the evidence which is done at the stage of judgment after completing the trial. He has further placed reliance on AIR 1976 SC 1947 : 1976 Cri LJ 1533 (Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi) in which it has been laid down that the Magistrate has to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceedings against the accused. It has been held in para No. 4 as under:
It would thus be clear from the two decisions of this Court that the scope of the inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is extremely limited only to the ascertainment of the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint- (i) on the materials placed by the complainant before the Court; (ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and (iii) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. In fact it is well settled that in proceedings under Section 202 the accused has got absolutely no locus stand! and is not entitled to be heard on the question whether the process should be issued against him or not.
7. The order of taking cognizance cannot be set aside on the basis of detail appreciation of evidence even if to take different view is possible.
8. On the perusal of the impugned judgment, I am inclined to agree with the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Sessions Judge has involved hi nisei fin a detail discussion and meticulous examination of the witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge has involved himself in detail discussion which may be a defence of the non-petitioner that she had also given a report on 2-6-83 about the alleged assault by the petitioner against the non-petitioner and has given a finding that the petitioner has filed this complaint on the next day to counter the case lodged by the non-petitioner. I am of the view that at this stage there is no material on record to take this vie wand to give such finding, lam unable to agree with the learned Sessions Judge that words "did not cause insult or provocation to the petitioner. It can be said at this stage that addressing a person by above words persi goes to show that a person has been intentionally insulted and provocation has been caused to him. In any case, this aspect of the offence under Section 504, IPC is a matter of further evidence. At this stage 1 am unable to agree with the learned Sessions Judge that such words were not spoken with an intention to insult. Of course, I agree with the learned Sessions Judge that so far as Section 353, IPC offence is concerned, the evidence recorded under enquiry could not show that petitioner was performing any public duty and he was obstructed or assaulted while performing the same. However, I agree with the learned Judicial Magistrate that there were sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused for the offence under Section 504, IPC and the impugned order by Judicial Magistrate was not justified to be interfered with by the learned Sessions Judge in revisional powers to his extent.
9. From the above discussion, I find that this revision petition deserves to be partly accepted.
10. Consequently, the revision petition is hereby partly accepted. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 14-8-86 is partly upheld to the extent that there were no sufficient grounds to proceed against the non-petitioner for the offence under Section 353, IPC and this impugned order is partly set aside to the extent that complaint has been dismissed for the offence under Section 504, IPC. There are sufficient grounds to proceed against the non-petitioner under Section 504. IPC and to this extent the order of taking cognizance dated 20-11 -84 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Churn is restored and upheld. It is. therefore, directed that the learned Judicial Magistrate shall proceed with the case in accordance with the law. Parties are directed to appear in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. Churu on 10-9-1996.