- (1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Kishan Lal against the order dated 23.7.2013 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khetri in complaint No. 26/2012, whereby the trial Court dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant-petitioner. Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that one D.B. PIL Petition No. 8221/2011 was filed in which Roshan Lal, Sushila Devi, Sardari, Dhapli Devi Badami Devi and Kailash were the parties. On account of illegal mining of Bajri, the PIL petition was filed. In this Public Interest Litigation, the Court passed stay on 5.7.2011 in favour of the petitioners therein. Thereafter on 24.9.2011 the Court recorded the order of displeasure in respect of conduct of accused Joga Ram. Inspite of he order passed by the High Court Collector hand in glove with Abu Bakar, the then SDO, Khetri and other police officials, started region of terror on the petitioner and other family members and threatening was given that thy are required to withdraw the public interest litigation. Thereafter contempt petition No. 546 of 2012 was filed on 5.5.2012 by Roshan Lal for compliance of the order dated 5.7.2011. The notices were issued by the Division Bench on 17.5.2012. On 1.6.2012 notice was received by the Collector, who was contemner respondent No. 4. He himself received the notice and informed Abu Bakar, who was contemner respondent No. 5 that contempt petition has been filed. The notice has also been served on Abu Bakar on 6.6.2012. With malafide intention and oblique motive/ill will, the plan was made along with the Superintendent of Police and other police officials to throw out the petitioner and other family members. On 8.6.2012 at about 1.30 p.m. Abu Bakar SDO Khetri in connivance with Collector made attack at the house of petitioner and others for the purpose of humiliating them before the public. At about 7.30 pm. again attack was made by SDO and four SHOs along with other police officials with the connivance of Collector, they were abusive in respect of SC/ST and beating was given. Dhapli Devi received serious injury on neck. She remained admitted as Indoor patient and further more in view of humiliating in public, abuse was given to ladies and they were humiliated and one girl Komal, aged about 12 years was kidnapped for the purpose of selling and thereafter she was let it out. On 13.5.2012 the complainant filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Khetri, against the then Collector Joga Ram, the then SDO Abu Bakar, along with four SHO of Khetri and other persons. On 14.6.2012 the Court below passed order in the complaint directing the complainant and his witnesses to remain present before the Court on 16.6.2012. On 16.6.2012 and 30.6.2012 statements of complainant and his material witnesses including victim were recorded under Section 200 Cr. P.C. After hearing the arguments the Court below passed order on 30.6.2012 and sent the matter under Section 202 Cr. P.C. to SP Jhunjhunu. Thereafter the matter was transferred to Additional SP Jhunjhunu for investigation. The statements of complainant and his witnesses including victim were recorded by Additional SP under Section 202 Cr. P.C. The Additional SP also prepared the site plan on 24.7.2012. The petitioner submitted following authorities in this case; (1) Dr. Mrs. Nupur Talwar vs. CBI Delhi, 2012 1 RajLW 584 (2) Shivji Singh vs. Nagendra Tiwari and others, 2010 7 SCC 578 (3) Rashmi Kumar (Smt.) vs. Mahesh Kumar, 1997 2 SCC 397 (4) Raj Kumar Khurana vs. State of NCT Delhi and others R. Prasanna and others, 2010 2 RajLW 1626 (5) Mrs. Dhari Laxmi vs. R. Prasanna and others, 1990 AIR(SC) 494 (6) Vilas Pandurang and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2012 8 SCC 795 (7) Mohd. Ayub vs. State of Raj. and ors, 2012 CrLR 262 (8) Mohd. Ayub vs. State of Raj. and ors, 2012 CrLR 262 (9) Kanwar Pal Singh vs. State of Raj. and others, 2005 6 SCC 161 (10) Raju Pandurang Mahale vs. State of Maharashtra, 2004 4 SCC 371 (11) Chauthmal Kumawat vs. State of Raj,2010 WLC(Raj) 348
(2.) The court below vide order dated 23.7.2013 dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant petitioner.
(3.) Mr. S.R. Surana, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. A.K. Bhargava has argued that the Court below has committed material illegality while not considering the statements of complainant and other ladies recorded under Section 200 Cr. P.C. While making enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P.C. the site plan prepared clearly shows that there is no encroachment in any way and the location is showing the position of the house of the victim. Sheeshram and Jai ram, who are the independent eye-witnesses in this case but their statements have been completely ignored and entire complaint has been dismissed observing that there are contradictions in their statements. Dhapli, who is 72 years old, received injury as per her statement. This has been ignored along with medical evidence in this case. Dhapli was admitted to the SMS Hospital from 9.6.2012 till 17.6.2012 on account of injury on the survical region. It has also been stated that during the course of enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P.C. a site plan was prepared by Additional S.P. on 24.7.2012 which has also been completely ignored. The case was at the stage of taking cognizance. At the state of framing of a charge, probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into and the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. The rulings cited by the complainant has not been considered while rejecting the complaint. It was prayed that the rejection of complaint deserves to be quashed. The manner adopted by the trial Court in this matter is resulting in grave miscarriage of justice.;