JAIN, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have filed this revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr. P. C. against the order of Judicial Magistrate, Desuri dated 27. 6. 85 in criminal revision case no. 168/85 whereby the learned Magistrate has ordered for taking cognizance against the petitioners and others for the offence under Section 500 IPC.
(2.) THE brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition may be stated as follows : The complainant non petitioner filed a civil suit no. 9/83 whereby he challenged a sale of the house effected by Smt. Naju Bai and her daughter Smt. Pani Bai on 17. 5. 82 in favour of Oswal Jain Sangh, Dayalana Bada. He also impleaded Deepchand and others as representatives of said Oswal Jain Sangh. The complainant alleged that as a result of institution of the above civil suit some members of the Jain Samaj became annoyed with him and conspired to outcaste him. On 8. 5. 84 the petitioners and others assembled in Amali Khata Bhawan Jain Samaj and resolved not to have social connection with the non-petitioner complainant. The resolution passed by the above assembly of the petitioners was to this effect : ****************** After adopting the above resolution the same was communicated to all the members of the community. The complainant non- petitioner further alleged that pursuant to the above resolution the members of the community started boycotting. The complainant pleaded that the petitioners and others have to revoke the above resolution but it was not done so. On these allegations a complaint was filed by the complainant non-petitioner and the learned Magistrate found a prima facie case against the petitioners & others and registered a case under Section 500 IPC. None has appeared on behalf of the non-petitioner complainant. Shri Sandeep Mehta learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that even assuming that the above resolution was passed, no offence under Section 500 IPC is made out. He placed reliance on Khalil and others vs. State of Raj. and Anr. (1 ). In the above case the facts were that the petitioner was excommunicated by the respondent and the members of the community started to have no contracts with the respondents. It was held that no offence under Section 500 IPC was made out. The facts of the present case are almost identical. In the instant case also by passing the above cited resolution the members only enjoined upon other members of the community not to have contracts with the complainant non-petitioner. By doing so the petitioners and others cannot be said to have committed any offence under Section 500 IPC.
(3.) FOR the above reasons, I accept the revision petition and quash the order of the learned Magistrate. .;