- (1.) PALOK Basu, J. Udai Ram, Ram Bahal, Krishna Mohan and Girish have preferred this application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. praying that the order of the Magistrate dated 29-5-1984 summoning them under Sections 147, 148 149 and 302, I. P. C. as upheld in revisional order of VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Basti dated 9-8-1985 be quashed in exercise of powers of this Court under Section 482, Cr. P. C.
(2.) THE facts relate to the alleged murder of one Ramdas said to have been committed on 25-9-1975, Ram Lakhan alleging himself to be the informant complainant in the instant case alleged that relating to the said murder of Ramdas he had forwarded a report addressed to the Superintendent of Police Basti under registered cover as his report was not taken down at the police station since the Station Incharge was friendly with the accused. He further said that the applicants were the real accused having committed the murder of Ramdas on 25-9-1975 around 4 p. m. which incident was seen by various witnesses. He named himself Girdhari, Ram Udit and Bijli as eye-witnesses. This complaint was preferred on 11-7-1977 which was forwarded by the Magis trate to the police station for investigation under Section 200, Cr. P. C. THE police reported that the allegations contained therein were not correct or truthful and no case for proceedings against the accused was made out. Ram Lakhan objected to the acceptance of the said report (final report) and said that the police station has acted mala fide. At this, the Magistrate directed reinvestigation by the police which order was complied with and yet another Final Report came. THE Magistrate however, did not accept the Final Report and instead proceeded to examine Ram Lakhan under Section 200, Cr. P. C. and also examined Sita Ram, Gitdhari, Kamla Pandey, Ram Pandey, Harshdeo Ram and Onkarnath Shukla under Section 202, Cr. P. C. on the strength of the said statement of the witnesses he proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 25-9-1984. THE appellants' revision before the learned Sessions Judge having been dismissed by the VI Addl. Sessions Judge Basti in Criminal Revision No. 469 of 1984 by the impugned order dated 9-8-1985, the present application under Section 482, Cr. P. P. has been filed. In the statement of the witnesses it has come that relating to the alleged murder of Ramdas one Nirahu Singh had lodged a FIR which was duly investigated by the police as Crime No. 152 and a charge- sheet was ultimately against Balihari Pandey. Baljeet Pandey, Ram Naresh Pandey, Kishundeo Pandey, Ram Lakhan Pandey (complainant in the instant case and Ram Kuber Pandey. This charge-sheet ultimately became the subject-matter of Sessions Trial No. 124 of 1975 State v. Balihari and others which ended in order of acquittal of all those accused passed on 17-11-1976. Sri G. D. Misra, learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the impugned order summoning the accused is illegal as well as contrary to the facts and, therefore, should be quashed for the reasons that (1) the State having filed two Final Reports regarding the present allegations and having filed a charge-sheet containing entirely different version relating to the murder of Ramdas is estopped from prosecuting the applicants who were the witnesses on the former occasion in the said charge-sheet and, therefore, the State is estopped from prosecuting this case ; (ii) the procedure of complaint cases having been resorted to by the Magistrate which was incumbent upon him to have examined all the eye- witnesses in view of the provisions contained in Section 202, Cr. P. C. and that having not been done, the order is illegal ; (iii) the continuance of the present proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court as the incident is of the year 1975 and there is no likelihood of any evidence whatsoever how forthcoming in the trial even if it goes on and, therefore, the impugned order should be quashed.
(3.) SRI Ravindra Rai, Advocate, counsel appearing for the opposite party complainant Ram Lakhan has refuted all the arguments noted above and has said that all those principles are not attracted as it is a simple case of a cross-version in a murder case being put forward in the Court of law by rival party and, therefore, the legal process should be allowed to be completed and no ultimately termination of the proceedings is called for. Learned counsel for the ayplicants vehemently argued that is not the Section 300, Cr. P. C. atleast principles behind it should be attracted to the present case. He has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1965 SC 87 Monipur Administration. Manipur v. Thokchom Bira Singh. In this case, however, it does not appear to be pertinent to hold that Sectian 300, Cr. P. C. is at all attracted to the facts of the present case. The earlier trial though related to the alleged murder of Ramdas was certainly between different accused and the State and, therefore, the subsequent trial (i. e. the present proceedings) was not between the same parties. The language used in sub-section (1) of Section 300, Cr. P. C. leaves no scope for the different persons litigating on the second occasion to rely upon the judgment of the Court on the former occasion between different parties and for this very reason the principles of 'issue Estoppel' as laid down by the Supreme Court in the afore said decision too are not attracted.;