Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The plaintiff, Sah Chaturbhuj, alleged that owing to the enmity which exists between him and Mauji Ram, defendant, the latter complained to the Superintendent of Police of Mainpuri who directed on that complaint that proceedings under Section 107, Criminal P.C., should be taken against Chaturbhuj and certain other persons. When the case under Section 107, Criminal P.C., was pending in the Court of a Magistrate at Mainpuri the defendant made a complaint under Section 506, I.P.C., against the plaintiff. The case was tried by the same Magistrate who had heard the case under Section 107, Criminal P.C. The plaintiff alleged that the complaint made against him under Section 506, I.P.C., was false to the knowledge of the defendant and was filed without reasonable and probable cause and maliciously. it is also the case of the plaintiff that the proceedings under Section 107, Criminal P.C., were also started at the instance of the defendant falsely, maliciously and without any reasonable and probable cause. The learned Magistrate, who heard both these cases, found that the complaint under Section 506, I.P.C., was true and further that the case under Section 107 Criminal P.C. was one in which it was necessary to bind down Chaturbhuj, plaintiff. In the case under Section 107, Criminal P.C., he was bound over for a period of one year. Against these two orders Chaturbhuj, plaintiff, preferred appeals to the Court of the Sessions Judge of Mainpuri, who held that both the complaints were untrue and therefore he acquitted the plaintiff in respect of the charge under Section 506, I.P.C., and also passed an order of discharge in connexion with the case under Section 107, Criminal P.C.

23. Now we may proceed to consider the evidence which has been produced in the case. The case, under Section 506, Penal Code, was started by Mauji Ram, against Chaturbhuj, plaintiff, on a complaint which is printed at p. 86. This complaint was filed by him in Court on 21st May 1929. He stated that on the morning of that day he was in a garden belonging to Kishori Lal in Mainpuri when Chaturbhuj, plaintiff, Lachhmi Narain, Shyam Lal and Bishun went to him and suggested to him very politely that he should withdraw the proceedings which had been started at his initiation under Section 107, Criminal P.C., against them. Mauji Ram declined to agree to this request whereupon Chaturbhuj and others became very much displeased and threatened to murder him This story was denied by the plaintiff. The question which we have to consider, is as to whether or not the complaint made by Mauji Ram against Chaturbhuj and others was without any reasonable and probable cause and made maliciously. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove this point.

28. Mauji Ram in his plaint, to which a reference has already been made, stated that on his refusal to agree to the request made by the plaintiff he and his companions got angry and told him that he would meet the same fate as had befallen Ram Sarup Gupta. It appears that according to Mauji Ram, Ram Sarup Gupta was murdered at the instigation of Chaturbhuj plaintiff. It is said that when Mauji Ram refused to compromise the matter as suggested by Chaturbhuj the latter told him that he would meet the same fate as had befallen Ram Sarup Gupta. The evidence of Mauji Ram is supported by Ganeshi Lal, Ali Ahmad Khan and Hadiyar Khan. Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case we find it very difficult to believe that the plaintiff could have gone to Mauji Ram at the house of his relation Kishori Lal in Mainpuri. Mauji Ram in his evidence states that early in the morning at about 7 he reached the place of Kishori Lal and within a few minutes the plaintiff and his companions came up there. The story appears to be highly improbable.

Rs. 3,240, fee of counsel Rs. 1,000, expenses in connexion with witnesses Rs. 1,060 on, account of physical and mental -discomfort
------------
Rs. 5,300
------------

36. For the reasons given above we allow this appeal, set aside the decree of the Court below and grant the plaintiff a decree for a sum of Rs. 5,300 with proportionate costs in both the Courts.

37. We now come to the other appeal which relates to the case started by the appellant under Section 107, Criminal P.C. On 16th March 1929, Mauji Ram made an application to the District Magistrate of Mainpuri in which he complained that he had received news that a large party of bad mashes had gathered in Khairgarh village and they appeared to be anxious to commit such acts as to bring out a serious occurrence in the village and for that reason there was danger. If proceedings to stop this were not taken there might be trouble. He further mentioned that between 8 and 9 p. m. on 14th March 1929, he and his pairokar were going to the Court of the District Judge of Mainpuri in order to give evidence in a case when they found some branches of trees on the road near Kalhur with a view to stop his motor, but his driver cleverly passed the car. Further he complained that he had learnt that Amarchand and some other relations of his had been stopped by armed men at a short distance from Mainpuri. He therefore prayed for suitable action. Later on it appears that Mauji Ram complained to the Superintendent of Police of Mainpuri on the same date and he directed the Sub-Inspector of Pharha that as Mauji Ram was complaining that he was in danger of his life on account of the activities of Chaturbhuj, some action under Section 107, Criminal P.C., should be taken against Chaturbhuj.