V. S Dave, J. - (1.) This is an application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the order dated 8-6-87 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Atru, taking cognizance for offence under Sections 147 and 323 IPC against the petitioners should be quashed.
(2.) For an offence alleged to have been committed on 3-10-85, an F.I.R. was recorded on 26-10-86 i.e. after an year and 23 days wherein 17 persons have been named and the offence alleged is under Sections 147 and 323 IPC. Complainant-respondent, Surendra Singh, presented an application before the Superintendent, of Police (Rural), Kota that he was living in village Jadota where he had purchased 32 bighas and 2 biswas of land from his own brother-in-law Raghuraj Singh for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/-. He left the Government service and started living in this village. After some time, Raghuraj Singh started harassing him. He further stated that his brother-in-law has restrained him from harvesting the crop and, therefore, he filed a suit under Sec. 188 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act before A.C.M., Chabra and also prayed for appointment of a Receiver, aggrieved by which, on 3rd Oct., 1985 Shivraj Singh accompanied with Raghuraj Singh, Narain Singh, Rajendra Singh Chauthmal, Vikram Singh Dhan Singh, Akheraj Singh, Tej Singh, Radha Kishan, Pratap Singh, Gobari Lal, Motilal, Mangi Lal, Ismail Khan, Panna and Babulal armed with lathis and Gandasa, came to his house. Shivram called him and when he came out, Shivram gave a slap on his face and brought him out side his house where all the accused were there. All of them beat him and told him that he should accompany them to Atru and execute a stamp. Next day morning, they brought him to Atru where Ismail Khan, Raghuram, Shivram Singh and Radha Kishan were with them. They purchased a stamp for Rs. 5/- and got his signatures. He left the village thereafter and returned to Chabra on 16-11-86 to lodge this report which has been typed on 1-10-86. Superintendent of Police directed the case to be registered hence a case under Sections 147, 148 and 323 IPC was registered on 26-10-83 and the police recorded the statements of the complainant Surendra Singh. He gave a little different story in his statement under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. where he stated that accused Shivraj Singh came to his house and they remained in the village. He was taken by Shivraj Singh to them after giving a slap and thereafter, they told him that if he wants to stay in that village he has to live in a manner according to what they want and, thereafter gave the story of execution of the dead. No other person's statement could be recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. as there was none. Police, therefore, gave final report in the case stating that no case is made out as statement of the complainant is not corroborated by any witness. It has also been observed therein that the complainant was asked to produce independent witnesses but he failed to produce them, it was also mentioned that since a revenue case is pending between the parties, this complaint has been filed to pressurise the defendants in that case. The final report was submitted on 29-3-87. The learned Magistrate by a very cryptic order took cognizance of the offence against as many as 14 persons for offences under Sections 147 and 323 IPC and summoned them. It is against this order that this petition has been filed.
(3.) There can be hardly a better case to demonstrate how the process of the Court is abused then the present one. The learned Magistrate before issuing the process neither looked into the record nor applied his mind judicially. He summoned the accused in a very mechanical manner, even against the provisions of law. He has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 323 IPC in total defiance of mandatory provision of Sec. 468 Cr.P.C. Offence under Section 323 IPC is punishable with a simple imprisonment of one year or a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or both. Section 468 Cr.P.C. puts a bar for taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation and the limitation which ran from 3-1-85 had expired on 3-10-86 even prior to taking down the FIR. It is unfortunate and regrettable that the learned Magistrate has not gone into the provisions of law before issuing the process. He and was either unmindful of the same or has deliberately overlooked them. For that reason alone, taking cognizance for offence under Sec. 323 IPC is bad in law. Regarding offence under Section 147 Cr.P.C. it is not even made out from the statement of the complainant himself that there was any over tact specified against any of the per-on except a bald statement that so may people collected in the village where Shivraj Singh took him and then they gave beating to him with not even a scratch on his person. It appears that the complainant arrayed as many as fourteen accused so that by implicating the important persons of the village as offenders in this case so that in revenue case he may argue that they are unreliable because there is a criminal case pending between them. The story given by the complainant does not inspire the least confidence. In ordinate delay of more than a year i.e. even beyond the period of limitation in filing report is not explained. I need not go into other infirmities which are in numerable in this case but suffice it to say that the case does not inspire any confidence and is one which squarely falls within the purview of Sec. 482 Cr.P.C.;