R.K.RASTOGI,J. - (1.) THIS is a revision against the order dated 7 -11 -05 passed by the Judicial Magistrate -II, Jaunpur in Complaint Case No. 1065 of 2005, Indrapal v. Shreepal & Ors., Police Station Sikrara District Jaunpur, under Sections 323,324,394,504 and 506 I.P.C
(2.) THE facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that on 27 -4 -05 the complainant opposite party No. 2 moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the revisionists with these allegations that he was employed in the Railway Protection Force and after retirement he came to his village Samaspur, P.S. Sikrara District Jaunpur to reside at his ancestral house. His brother Sripal and his (Sri Pal's) two sons namely Sri Maya Shankar and Uma Shankar used to torture him. On 23 -4 -05 at about 4 p.m. a quarrel took place between the ladies of both the houses on account of some dispute between their children and at that time the accused threatened to see him. On 24 -4 -05 at about 6.30 p.m. the complainant Indrapal, after providing grass to his buffalo, was removing it from the Nand. At that time Sripal and his son Uma Shankar having Lathis in their hands, reached there and threatened to kill him and started beating him with Lathis. They also snatched Rs. 1000 from him which he had kept in the upper pocket of his shirt. The complainant shouted for help. Then the witnesses Ajai Kumar, Jagdish Prasad, Amarnath and Chulbul reached there and saw the incident. The accused threatened him that if he lodges any report against them at the police station, he would be killed. The complainant could not go any where in the night due to fear of the accused. On the next date, he went to the hospital and got his injuries examined, and then the information of the incident was given to the S.P., Jaunpur by registered post but no action was taken. It was, therefore, prayed that the S.O. Sikrara may be directed to register the case against the accused and investigate the same. Learned Magistrate, after hearing the complainant, rejected the above application vide order dated 11 -5 -05 in which he observed that both the parties belong to one family and it was alleged that the accused had robbed Rs. 1000 from the complainant which he had kept in his pocket. The Magistrate further observed that this allegation of robbery appears to have been made with a view to make the case cognizable by the police, otherwise there was no justification for keeping Rs. 1000 in the pocket of shirt while providing fodder to buffalo in the evening. It was also observed that the complainant may, if he so desires, file a complaint case against the accused persons. With these observations the application was rejected. Aggrieved with the above order the accused revisionist filed criminal revision No. 439/05 before the Sessions Judge, Jaunpur. This revision was heard and decided by Sri R.P. Tripathi learned Sessions Judge, Jaunpur vide his judgment and order dated 11 -8 -2005. He agreeing with the view of the learned Magistrate expressed his opinion that the allegation of robbery of Rs. 1000 did not appear to be true. He found no illegality in the order of the learned Magistrate. He, therefore, dismissed the revision.
(3.) THEREAFTER the complainant filed complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate II, Jaunpur under Sections 323,324,394, 504 and 506 I.P.C. with the similar allegations. It was also stated in the complaint that the accused No. 2 Maya Shankar was armed with a Gandasi at the time of incident and he had used that a Gandasi in the incident. The learned Magistrate, after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and of his witnesses 202 Cr.P.C. was of the view that a prima facie case under Sections 323, 324, 394, 504 and 506 I.P.C. was made out against the accused. He, therefore, summoned them vide his order dated 7 -11 -2005. Aggrieved with that order the accused filed this revision.;