Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The factual matrix leading to the filing of the instant revisional application is that there was an incident between the parties on 11.10.2012 for which a case and a counter-case were started. In terms of the First Information Report of the G.R. Case No. 1010 of 2012, on 11.10.2012 at about 2.00 p.m., when earth was being excavated for construction of a road, the present petitioner interrupted and abused the labourers. At that time, the son of the de facto complainant was coming along with that road. The accused/petitioner then abused him. On hearing hue and cry, the de facto complainant rushed there. The accused/petitioner attacked the de facto complainant and fell her down catching her hair, pulled her sari, torn her blouse, kicked her and snatched her earrings. On the basis of such complaint, Chhatna Police Station Case No. 126 of 12 under Sections 341/323/325/354/506 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The case was investigated into and on completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the present petitioner under Sections 341/323/325/354/506 /34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Over the selfsame incident, the present petitioner also lodged a written complaint alleging that on 11.10.2012 at about 3.00 p.m., the opposite parties physically assaulted him with iron rod and bamboo sticks. As a result, the petitioner sustained injuries and his neck was cracked and he was admitted in hospital. Over that complaint, Chhatna Police Station Case No. 125 of 2012 under Sections 143/341/323/325/506 of the Indian Penal Code was registered.

The grounds for preferring the instant revisional application are that the learned Magistrate erred in law by entertaining the First Formation Report against the present petitioner and that he acted with material irregularity by not considering the fact that the Chhatna Police Station Case No. 125 of 2012 was filed first by the present petitioner while the Chhatna Police Station Case No. 126 of 2012 was filed by the opposite parties later on and that the allegations made by the opposite parties against the present petitioner are false and fabricated.