SHANKAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and also learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

(2.) THE facts which are relevant for deciding the controversy between the parties, briefly stated, are that the complainant petitioner Shankar Singh had filed a Criminal Complaint against Gopal Bheya non petitioner No. 2 on 21.12.1995 before the competent court on the grounds inter alia that on the relevant date he was posted as Gardener in Horticulture Department at Udaipur. On 13.12.1995. i.e. the date of occurrence while he was performing his duties at Talabshai Garden, Badi when accused non -petitioner No. 2 started assaulting the petitioner and threw him out of the Garden. The incident was witnessed by Munni Lal and Rameshwar. The learned trial Magistrate after recording the Statements of petitioner and the witnesses adduced before him took cognizance against the accused only for offence under Section 323 IPC, while exonerated him as regard the offence under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and also for an offence under Section 504 IPC. Against the said impugned order of the trial court taking cognizance against the accused -non -petitioner No. 2 Gopal Bhaiya, revision petition was preferred to the learned Special Judge (SC/ST) Cases, Dholpur which was allowed by the said court vide order dated 25.9.1996 and as a result the order of the trial court dated 14.02.1996 was quashed and set aside. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.09.1996, the petitioner -Complainant has come up by way of present. Revision Petition before this Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C.

(3.) PRIMA -facie I am of the opinion that before the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. can be invoked the petitioner has to make out prima -facie a case for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court by specifically pointing out the illegalities which have been committed by the court below and on prima -facie view of the matter, the same should be held non -est being not sustainable in the eyes of law. Hence the inherent powers of this Court cannot be invoked as a matter of right in each and every case. From the perusal of the impugned order dated 25.09.1996 of the revisional court it is apparent that the trial court by which cognizance against the accused was taken was confirmed only to the extent of offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. However the learned revisional court on due appreciation of evidence on the record did not find the impugned order of trial Court sustainable in law since there was no sufficient and proper evidence on the record which would justify the commission of offence even under Section 323 IPC and hence the accused -non -petitioner No. 2 having been falsely implicated in this case on account of strained relations of the complainant -petitioner with him in my view was rightfully exonerated after charge under Section 323 IPC. I am further of the view that the complainant has to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 202 Cr. P.C. by leading relevant, cogent and consistent evidence on the record before the process can be issued on the basis of complaint filed by him and it is also open to the trial Magistrate to make any independent enquiry under the said provision before he may issue the process summoning the accused. I am further of the view that liberty of an individual which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be violated on the whims and fancies of a party and there is no compulsion on the Magistrate that he must issue process in each and every case, since there is no mandatory requirement of the statute for doing so. I am further of the view that in view of Section 203 Cr. P.C., after considering the statements on oath of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of enquiry or investigation, if any, under Section 202 Cr. P.C. the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall dismiss the complaint and in every such case he shall briefly record the reasons for doing so. The Magistrate only has to consider the following: