G. M. LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is a criminal revision petition under Section 401 Cr. P. C. read with Section 482 Cr. P. C.
(2.) THIS revision petition is directed against an order of the Magistrate dated 7. 5. 1980 in which he directed that the S. H. O. who has sent the complaint without investigation should be prosecuted for offences under Sections 185, 217 of the I. P. C. and 29 of the Police Act. This is one of those cases where clearly the process of the court has been abused by the Munsiff Magistrate in hot haste and immixture understanding of the law and facts. It is a typical type of rashness exhibited by the Munsiff Magistrate. The facts may be noticed in brief. A criminal case was filed by one Hareat Umar under Section 379 IPC. The complainant was Chirmoli and the accused Hareat Umar and others. The offence alleged was 379 I. P. C. regarding taking away of some crop. This complaint dated 12. 4. 1979 was registered by the Magistrate and sent in original to the S. H. O. for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Cr. P. C. and report of the result of the investigation to be sent by 2. 5. 1979. This order was passed on 12. 4. 1979. It appears that on 13. 4. 1979 the S. H. O. concerned sent the complaint in original with the endorsement that the complainant has moved an application before him mentioning that this particular crop was of Rehman and he took it. After the filing of the complaint when the complainant went back to his house he returned the portion or the share of the crop and therefore, he does not like to proceed with the case. The S. H. O. requested the learned Magistrate to issue necessary direction as to what should be done as after the receipt of this application he prima facie feels that no further investigation by the police is required. He in the last requested that if it is approved then the complaint may be consigned to the record.
(3.) IT appears that the Munsiff Magistrate on reading of this order felt obsessed by unwarranted exalted sense of authority of the Magistrate and feeling offended by the non-compliance of his order, he directed that the S. H. O. must be prosecuted. The learned counsel argued this case and pointed out that whatever might be the order of the Magistrate but so far as the direction of the prosecution of the S. H. O. is concerned, it is wholly uncalled for and is gross abuse of process of court. I have got no hesitation in expressing agreement with this submission of the learned counsel. The S. H. O. was justified in making a reference to the Magistrate in the changed circumstances. The Magistrate could have insisted an investigation or could have also dropped the proceedings. The proceedings have not commenced so far. No cognizance was taken. No notice was issued to the accused and, therefore, at this preliminary initial stage if the complainant was not anxious to prosecute the matter and that too regarding taking away of the crop from a field, neither the Magistrate nor the S. H. O. should have exhibited this unwarranted sense of authority. The S. H. O. rightly pointed out that the changed circumstances warranting that no further investigation would be done. ;