O.P.Saxena, J. - (1.) THIS is a Criminal Revision and connected Criminal Miscellaneous application under section 487, CrPC against the order dated 12-1-1983 passed by the learned Sessions fudge, Pithoragarh in Criminal Revision No. 18 of 1982, A. S. Nayal & two others v. State and another.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision and connected Criminal Miscellaneous application are that Khem Chand is employed as a driver in the Collectorate in district Pithoragrah. A. S. Nayal, Kunal Sharma and Sabhajit Shukla are Executive Magistrates posted in district Pithoragraph. On 19-10- 1981 Khem Chand filed n complaint against A. S. Nayal and two other Executive Magistrates for offences under Sections 323, 394, 504 and 506 IPC said to have been committed on 10-9-1981 at 8.15 P. M. It was alleged that the accused abused, threatened and beat the complainant and robbed him of Rs, 3,000/- on account of a suspicion that he had earlier made a complaint against them to the District Magistrate. THE statement of Khem Chand was recorded under section 200, CrPC on the same day. P. W. 1 Murli Dhar, P. W. 2 Lalta Prasad and P. W. 3 Govind Chandra were examined under Section 202 CrPC. On 19th July 1982 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh summoned the accused for offences under Sections 394, 504 and 506 (second part) of the Indian Penal Code. Against this, the accused filed Criminal Revision No. 18 of 1982 before the Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh. THE learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned order and allowed the revision partly and quashed the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate summoning the accused for an offence under Section 394, IPC. THE remaining part of the order summoning the accused for offence under Sections 504 and 506 IPC was upheld. Khem Chand has filed the Criminal Revision against a portion of the impugned order quashing the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate summoning the accused for the offence under Section 394 IPC. THE accused have filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482, CrPC for quashing the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge whereby he has confirmed summoning of the accused for offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and gone through the record. There is a growing tendency on the part of mischievous litigants to file vexatious and frivolous complaints. Complaints for criminal misappropriation are filed against outstation accused. Complaints for defamation are filed. Complaints of civil nature are filed. Some of the complaints are filed solely for harassment. The purpose of a mischievous litigant is achieved when the accused are summoned. Some Magistiates act in a mechanical manner. It is time to sound a note of caution and apprise the Magistrates of their responsibility under the law,
(3.) WHEN a complaint is filed, a Magistrate takes cognizance under Section 190 (I) (a) CrPC. The complainant is examined under Section 200 CrPC. Under Section 202 (1) CrPC, the Magistrate, if he thinks fit, may postpone the issue of process against the accused, and may either enquire into the case himself or direct an lnveatigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. It is obvious that a process can be issued on the statement under Section 200 CrPC Itself, but the legislature in its wisdom does not favour any hasty decision by the Magistrate and wants him to postpone the issue of process if he Is not satisfied from the statement of the complainant and other material on the record that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Under Section 202 (2) CrPC the Magistrate may. If he thinks fit, may take evidence of witnesses on oath. Under Section 203 CrPC, if after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation if any) under Section 202 CrPC the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record the reasons for so doing. The law imposes a serious responsibility on the Magistrate to decide if there is sufficient groundfor proceeding. Every case has to be judged on its own facts. The Magistrate has to exercise judicial discretion in deciding the matter. The case of Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya, AIR 1960 SC 1113 may be referred. There should be neither a prejudice that complaints are generally false nor a feeling of utter helplessness that because statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC have been made, there is no option but to summon the accused. Apart from Section 311 CrPC, there is Section J 65 of the Evidence Act which provides as below : "165. Judge's power to put question or order production-The judge may in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts, ask any question he pleases, in any form at any time, of any witness, or of the parties about any fact relevant or irrelevant; and may order the production of any document or thing; and neither the parties nor their agents shall be entitled to make any objection to any such question or order, not, without the leave of the Court, to cross-examine any witness upon any answer given in reply to any such question. Provided that the judgment must be based upon facts declared by this Act to be relevant, and duly proved ; Provided also that this section shall not authorize any Judge to compel any witness to answer any question or to produce any document which such witness would be entitled to refuse to answer or produce under Sections 121 to 131, both inclusive, if the questions were asked or the documents were called for by the adverse party nor shall the Judge ask any question which it would be improper for any other person to ask under section 148 or 149, nor shall he dispense with primary evidence or any document, except in the cases hereinbefore excepted." ;