J.M.L.SINHA,J. - (1.) THIS is an appli­cation under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The facts lead­ing up to this application can briefly be stated as under ;- On 3rd of November, 1973, Bal Ki­shan, hereinafter to be called opposite party no. 1 filed a complaint in the court of the Additional District Magis­trate (J), Varanasi against the present applicants, inter alia, alleging that on 14th October, 1973, they went in a body to the house of opposite party no. 1 and forcibly took away his paddy croplying there. It was further alleged by the opposite party that when he and other members of his house asked the applicants to refrain from doing that high-handed act, the applicants threatened and intimidated them. They also took away with them the opposite party no. 1 along with some other persons to the thana and beat them there. On these allegations it was prayed that the applicants be prosecuted for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325.. 395 and 397, I.P.C. After having recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the preliminary evidence under Section 202 of the Code, the learned Magistrate summoned the appli­cants to stand trial for the offence under Section 395, I.PC.
(2.) IT appears that before the Ma­gistrate an objection was raised by the applicants, inter alia, alleging that the proceedings should be governed by the old Code and not the new Code and fur­ther that no case was made out against the applicants. This objection was re­jected by the learned Additional Dis­trict Magistrate (J) vide his order dated 4th November, 1975, with the observa­tion that it was the new Code which was applicable and consequently he had no option except to commit the appli­cants to the court of Sessions. Aggrie­ved against that order of the Magis­trate, the applicants filled a revision in the court of Sessions which revision too resulted in dismissal. The applicants have now moved this application alleging that no offence under Section 395, I.P.C. was made out against any of the applicants on the allegations made in the complaint and, consequently, the case was triable by the Magistrate and not by the court of Sessions. It was further alleged that since the alleged seizure of crops had been made by the applicants nos. 1, 2 and 3 in connection with an investigation of an offence, no offence whatsoever was at all made out against the appli­cants. The applicants accordingly pray­ed that the complaint pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate under the old Code A.D.M. (J) be quashed or, in the alternative, a direc­tion may be issued to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to proceed with the case under the old Code.
(3.) THE contention put by the learn­ed counsel for the applicants in the fore-front of his arguments, before me was that this court should quash the complaint pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the entire proceedings thereunder, as they amount to abuse of the process of court. Learn­ed counsel vehemently urged that the alleged seizure had been made by appli­cant no. 1, who happened to be the Station Officer of Police Station Chandauli, in connection with a report of theft lodged at the thana. Learned counsel urged that the present complaint was filed by the opposite party no. 1 only by way of Peshbandi and to pres­surise the applicant no. 1 to drop the proceedings.;