JHUMARMAL DUDHARIA - COMPLAINANT Vs. MAGANLAL DHADA- ACCUSED-OPPOSITE PARTIES
LAWS(GAU)-1975-12-1
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on December 23,1975

Jhumarmal Dudharia - Complainant Appellant
VERSUS
Maganlal Dhada - Accused -Opposite Parties Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.LAHIRI, J. - (1.) THIS criminal revision under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code is filed against an order dated 29.12.1972 passed by Shri A. Mazid, Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Tezpur in C. R. Case No. 497 of 1972 holding that there is no prima facie case against accused Sampatlal under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, however, framing charges against accused persons under Sections 452/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the judgement and order dated 28.7.1973 passed by Shri S. Haque, Sessions Judge, Darrang at Tezpur in Criminal Motion No. 8 of 1973, rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 435/437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2.) IT is really unfortunate that a matter so old is still pending on account of the delay in disposal of a preliminary point as to whether the accused persons should be committed to the Court of Session on framing charges under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against one of the accused persons.
(3.) IT may be stated here that the incident had happened as far back as on 26.4.1972. Such a delay is definitely telling both on the complainant as also on the accused persons. I find from the record that neither the trial court nor the learned Sessions Judge nor this Court was any way responsible for the delay in question. The petitioner is the complainant, who, on 28.4.1972 filed a complaint before the Magistrate First Class at Tezpur, alleging inter alia, that on 26.4.1972 (Wednesday) the opposite party No. 1, the proprietor, along with his sons the opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and accompanied by opposite party Nos. 5 and 6, the employees, at about 8 P.M. came to the shop of the petitioner. It was alleged by the complainant that the opposite party No. 1 was to vacate the house rented out in November last but on default the complainant filed a Civil Suit against the accused persons. It was also alleged that the accused persons all along demanded of the complainant for repairing the house in question which was situated very near the shop house of the complainant. On the date of the occurrence the opposite party Sampatlal and Bhawarilal entered the shop house and threatened the complainant that if the water pipe of the house be not repaired then he would be assaulted, at which the complainant protested and the other accused persons coming near the door -way threatened the complainant. It was alleged that the accused Sampatlal caught hold of the neck of the complainant who was gasping but the accused Bhawarilal was pushing him from behind. Then the complainant bit Sampatlal in his hand and those persons who were present there became very much excited and they wanted to kill him but he was saved by the other persons and one police -man who came there, took the complainant to the Police Station and from there he went to the hospital and the Doctor found some injuries on his neck. But, however, in the police station no ejahar was recorded.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.