JAGAN NATH Vs. MANSHA RAM
LAWS(HPH)-1991-10-3
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on October 30,1991

JAGAN NATH Appellant
VERSUS
MANSHA RAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Kamlesh Sharma, J. - (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by judgment dated 4/2/1988 of the Sessions Judge, Una whereby revision petition No. 20 of 1987 of respondents was accepted, order dated 28/7/1987 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una summoning them to face trial under section 379 and 452 I.P.C. was set aside complaint of the petitioner was dismissed.
(2.) The petitioner had made a private complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una that on 10.4.1986 at 3.00 P.M., he had gone out of his village after locking the shop in his occupation. In the evening when he returned, he came to know that the respondents in his absence had broken open the lock of his shop and had taken away all the articles lying therein. He alleged that after removing the articles, the respondents had put their own lock in the shop and thereby restrained his access to it According to him, amongst the articles removed by the respondents there were also cash and ornaments, which he had kept in his shop.
(3.) On receipt of complaint, the trial Magistrate recorded preliminary evidence and, thereafter, forwarded the complaint to Superintendent of Police, Una to get the inquiry conducted by some ,senior officer under section 202, Cr. P.C. After receiving the inquiry report, the trial Magistrate was not satisfied that prima facie case was made out for summoning the respondents and dismissed the complaint vide his order dated 8/7/1986. This order was set aside by the Sessions Judge in the revision petition filed by the petitioner and the case was remanded to trial Magistrate to proceed further in accordance with law. The Sessions Judge in his judgment dated 26/3/1987 had held that after himself conducting the preliminary inquiry, the trial Magistrate had no authority to send the complaint for further inquiry by police under section 202, Cr. P.C. This order of Sessions Judge became final between the parties. In the second round, the trial Magistrate issued process against the respondents, which now stands quashed by the impugned judgment of the Sessions Judge. Hence, the present revision petition by the petitioner under section 401, Cr. P.C.;


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