- (1.) THIS is a petition for revision against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, whereby in exercise of his powers under Section 398, Criminal Procedure Code, he directed further inquiry to be made in a criminal complaint in which the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class had recorded an order of discharge of the accused-petitioners.
(2.) THE respondent Vir Bhan filed a complaint against the two, accused-petitioners and one Baldev Singh who has since died, alleging that on 12-2-1976, he purchased a buffalo for Rs. 1250/-from one Gurbachan Singh in village Sondha, The buffalo appeared to be newly calved. The bargain was struck in the presence of one Kapur Singh and the complainant allegedly sent the former to his village to ask one Shabrati to meet him at Ambala City on 13-2-1976 at about 9. 30 A. M. as he anticipated that he would be able to take the buffalo by that time to Ambala City. The complainant further alleged that on 13-21976, he placed the calf on a rickshaw and that Sukhdev Singh accused-petitioner, who was the brother of Gurbachan Singh vendor, accompanied the complainant up to Ambala City whereat Shabrati, as arranged, met him. Therefrom it is alleged that the complainant and Shabrati left for their village Shah-zadpur with the buffalo and its calf and when they reached village Handesara, they took off the calf from the rickshaw as they had to cross the Tangri rivulet. After crossing the said rivulet, the complainant alleged that he reached near a grove of trees where he saw the three accused with three other persons variously armed with lathis and gandasis whereat Gurbaksh Singh and Baldev Singh accused caught hold of the complainant and Sukhdev Singh accused along with three others forcibly snatched the buffalo from Shabrati and till the buffalo had been taken away by those persons, the complainant and Shabrati was kept confined and threatened of murder if they tried to follow them. On Naurata Ram of Shahzadpur having arrived at the place, the accused ran away. The complainant further claimed that in the evening of 13-2-1976 he went to Police Station, Naraingarh and gave a report in writing but no action was taken and then on 25-3-1976, he sent a copy of the report to Superintendent of Police, Ambala, under registered cover but that bore no fruit. It is then that he filed the complaint. After recording preliminary evidence, the learned Magistrate summoned the accused for an offence under Section 392, Indian Penal Code. Thereafter he recorded some evidence and passed an order of discharge of the accused on 9-11-1977. The complainant filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, who allowed it on 20-5-1978 directing further inquiry to be made in the matter under Section 398, Criminal Procedure Code. He directed the parties to appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, for further proceedings. He gave occasion to the petitioners to move this Court in revision and obtain an order for staying further proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala.
(3.) IT has been canvassed at the bar that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, overstepped his jurisdiction exercisable under Section 398, Criminal Procedure Code, which is in the following language: 398. Power to order inquiry-On examining any record under Section 397 or otherwise, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrates subordinate to him to make; and the Chief Judicial Magistrate may himself make or direct any subordinate Magistrate to make, further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under Section 203 or Sub-section (4) of Section 204, or info the case of any person accused of any offence who has been discharged: Provided that no Court shall make any direction under this section for inquiry into the case of any person who; has been discharged unless such person has had an opportunity of showing cause why such direction should not be made. ;