Milap Chandra Jain, J. - (1.) This petition has been filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for setting aside the orders of the Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Srikaranpur dated January 02, 1988 taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 342 and 392, I.P.C. against the accused-petitioner and also of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar dated August 27, 1991, confirming the said order and for quashing the proceedings in which the said order had been passed by the Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Srikaranpur.
(2.) The facts of the case giving rise to this petition may be summarised thus. In October, 1986, the non-petitioner No. 2 Ajmer Singh, filed a complaint under Sections 323, 341 and 394, I.P.C. against the accused-petitioner with the allegations in short, that at about 11 P.M. on 23.10.86 the accused-petitioner knocked the door of his house, he opened the door, the accused-petitioner and 4-5 constables who then accompanied him forcibly put him in the truck and took him away. He was mercilessly beaten and his gold 'Kada', watch and Rs. 440/-were snatched away. A report was lodged in the Police Station, Kesrisinghpura and letters were also written to the higher authorities of the Central Government and State Government but with no avail. He then filed complaint in the Court of the Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Srikaranpura. It was sent under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. to the S.H.O., Kesrisinghpura. Police did nothing. Thereafter, another complaint was filed on July 18, 1987 with similar averments. The learned Magistrate recorded the statements of the complaint under Section 200, Cr.P.C. and his witnesses under Section 202, Cr.P.C. By order dated January 02, 1988, he took cognizance under Sections 323, 312 and 392 I.P.C. against the accused-petitioner and bailable warrant for Rs. 100/- was issued against him. Against this order, revision petition No. 21/88 was filed in the court of the Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar. It was transferred and heard by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar. On the date of hearing, none was present for and on behalf of the accused-petitioner. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the revision petition was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar by his order dated August 27,1991.
(3.) It is stated in para No. 4 and para No. 9 of the petition that on the date of hearing i.e. on August 27, 1991, lawyers were on strike and as such the petitioner's counsel could not appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar when the revision petition was taken up for hearing. At the commencement of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the points raised in this petition have not been dealt with in the impugned order as the Advocates were on strike and as such petitioner's counsel could not appear before the learned Sessions Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar when the revision petition was taken up for hearing.;