- (1.) P. K. Jain, J. Heard Sri VK. Shar ma, learned Counsel for the revisionist, Sri Krishna Kapoor, learned Counsel for op posite parties Nos. 2 to 6 and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
(2.) THE present revisionist, Chhitar Mal has filed a complaint against 11 ac cused persons alleging that the accused persons armed with lathis and dandas at tacked the complainant and when his wife came to his rescue they assaulted her also. When she ran to her house, the accused chased her and after breaking open the door they assaulted her and caused injuries to her. It was also alleged that while going to lodge report he was threatened to dire consequences on account of which the report was sent through registered post. The complainant examined him self and some witnesses under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P. C. The trial Court by order dated 19- 9-96 summoned the five accused persons out of eleven accused per sons viz. , opposite parties Nos. 2 to 6. Criminal Revision No. 394 of 1996 was filed by the accused persons challenging the summoning order which was allowed by the Revisional Court by its judgment and order dated 30-4-97. By the present revision, the Revisional Court's judgment and order is challenged on the ground that the Revisional Court has exceeded its jurisdic tion by appreciation of evidence and giving finding of facts. Learned Counsel appear ing on behalf of opposite parties Nos. 2 to 6 submits that even if it is assumed that the Revisional Court has its jurisdiction, it is not a fit case in which interference by this Court is called for, for the reason that the story put forth by the complainant is so absurd that no useful purpose shall be served by prosecuting the opposite parties 'nos. 2 to 6. It is also submitted that 11 accused were alleged to have assaulted simultaneously, the injuries sustained are only 3 in number and it is not clear who caused these injuries, none of the accused could be ultimately held responsible for commission of the offence, if any, because some of the accused have certainly been falsely nominated in the complaint.
(3.) A perusal of the Revisional Court's judgment goes to show that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has expressed his opinion on merits of the case by making certain observations. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has observed that certain circumstances made the prosecution theory false. There is no doubt about exag geration of the prosecution version but then the learned Addl. Sessions Judge should not have made such observations on facts. It is well settled that the Revisional Court cannot give findings of fact while hearing a revision. However, in the present case the peculiar circumstan ces are that as many as 11 accused are said to have assaulted the complainant's wife but she sustained only 3 injuries, which are on thigh only and not on any other part of the body, though victim complained of pain in other parts of the body yet no visible injury was seen, though she was allegedly beaten by lathis and Dandas. This prima fade shows that some of the accused persons were falsely nominated. The trial Court has not given reasons why only five viz. , opposite parties Nos. 2 to 6 were picked-up and were summoned and why rest were not summoned. From the materials available on record it is difficult to decipher as to who were falsely nominated. In these circumstances, there appears substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the opposite parties that no useful purpose shall be served by continuing the prosecution as there is no likelihood of any of the accused being con victed. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another etc. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others, etc. AIR 1988 SC 709, held as fol lows :- "the legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court can not be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage. " Besides it, there are some other decisions in which it has been held that vexatious prosecution could be quashed at the initial stage. In Khem Chand v. Avnendra Singh Nayal, (1983) (20) ACC 264, it was observed that there is growing ten dency on the part of the litigants to file complaints solely for harassment and the law imposes a serious responsibility on the Magistrate to decide if mere is sufficient ground for proceeding. If the learned Magistrate acts arbitrarily or ignores ap parent absurdities and improbabilities of the version or acts upon intrinsically, un trustworthy or self-contradictory evidence or acts in the absence of any legal evidence etc. it can be held that there was no exercise of judicial discretion.;