- (1.) B. K. Sharma, J. Sri C. K. Parikh appears for the applicants. Sri R. Pandey appears for opposite party No. 2 and learned A. G. A. appears in person.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This is an application under Section 482 Cr. P. C for quashing the complaint dated 22. 4. 1981 filed by the complainant Paltu (opposite, party No. 2) and also the criminal proceedings initiated on the said complaint and pending as Criminal Case No. 1 of 1981 before IVth Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Ghazipur. The allegations made in the impugned complaint made by Paltu against the present applicants were that on 19. 4. 1981 at about 2 P. M. the applicants acting in concert came to the door of the complainant Pallu; that Jagarnath Das (applicant No. 5) on being instigated by Sita Ram Chaturvedi (applicant No. 3) said that he is the Sarpanch of Adalat Panchayat Kshetra Senuwariya, Police Station Majhauliya and that Shiva Kumar Das, who is accompanying him, had filed a criminal complaint against him (against Paltu complainant) under Section 380 l. P. C. ; that this Sita Ram Chaturvedi is his officer and on the asking of this Sita Ram Chaturvedi, he has come with warrant to gel him arrested from police station Sadiyabad; that on his protesting that he never went to district Champaran and so where was the question of arresting him in a fictitious case Sita Ram Chaturvedi (applicant No. 3) started abusing him (Paltu com plainant) had threatened that he has got a case under Section 380 I. P. C. instituted and he will get him murdered when he goes to Sunwariya in that criminal case; that they exhorted to beat him, whereupon all the accused (the present applicants) ran to beat him (com plainant Paltu); that complainant Paltu ran into his house but the applicants chased him and entered the house and started beating him with kicks, fists and Danda and he was also relieved of his wrist watch and Rs. 52 from his shirt-pocket. In the said complaint a motive has been mentioned. It was that Ram Chandra Chaturvedi (Applicant No. 1) lodged a case under section 145 Cr. P. C. against Dhuriya, widow of Hatim, which was pending before Sub-Divisional Magistrate Saidpur, in which he (Paltu complainant) had filed an affidavit in favour of said Smt. Dhuriya, due to which Ram Chandra Chaturvedi (applicant No. 1) had become annoyed with him and had threatened him that he would be devastated by bringing a fictitious case against him in district Champaran. The present application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been made claiming that the complaint filed by Paltu (opposite, party No. 2), on the basis of which the applicants were summoned for the offences under Sections 452, 323, 506, 147 I. P. C. was false and fictitious and that no such occurrence had taken place. In support of the said claim reliance was placed on the circumstance that even before the date of the occurrence given in the said complaint made by Paltu (19. 4. 81) said Paltu had furnished his bail bonds on 6. 3. 81, so there was no question of taking any warrant of arrest for affecting the arrest of Paltu on the date of occurrence (19. 4. 81) as claimed in the complaint. The learned counsel for the applicants has also filed documents to show that the warrant of arrest was issued on 3. 2. 81 in Criminal Case No. 16 of 1980 under Section 380 I. P. C. lodged before the Nyaya Panchayat and that personal bond was furnished by Paltu (complainant) on 6. 3. 81 before the Nyaya Panchayat. In regard to this the claim of Paltu complainant (opposite, party No. 2) was that he never executed any such bond. So at present the execution of the said bond against his arrest in the criminal case lodged before the Nyaya Panchayat is not an admitted fact. Moreover, there is substance in the contention of the learned counsel for Paltu (opposite, party No. 2) that in the complaint lodged by Paltu, there is mention of the allegations which were made by the applicants at the time of occurrence and that thus only that has been mentioned which has been averred by the present applicants. In these circumstances at this stage it is not possible to come to the conclusion that the complaint lodged by Paltu was false.
(3.) THE learned counsel for Paltu (opposite, party No. 2) has placed reliance on the circumstance that Paltu has got himself medically examined from the Doctor of the Primary Medical Health Center on the date of occurrence itself and the Doctor had recorded as many as 3 injuries on his body. It is a case in which the Magistrate would have to assess the evidence at the stage of trial to come to the conclusion as to whether offences had been committed by the applicants or not. THEre was enough material before him to justify summoning of the accused-applicants on the basis of the complaint aforesaid made by Paltu. In the present application the applicants have set out an alibi in favour of Sita Ram Chaturvedi (applicant No. 3) but that is a matter to be decided on the time of trial of the case. Learned counsel for Paltu complainant (opposite. Party No. 2) has claimed that Jagarnath Das (applicant No. 5) who was the Sarpanch of the village Panchayat Kshetra Senuwariaya, police station Majhauliya, was in league with the other applicants.;