- (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Borio (Mirzachouki) P.S. case no. 201 of 2015 has been lodged alleging that that Beena Devi had tried to assault the husband of the informant with Hasua (sharp cutting weapon) and husband had warded the blow by raising his right hand due to which he sustained sharp cut injury on the finger of the right hand. That the said F.I.R., bears the thumb impression whereas it would be evident that the informant has put her signature in Complaint Case no. 232 of 2015 (Annexure-6), which shows that she is a literate person. It is submitted that Beena Devi had lodged Mirzachouki P.S case no. 201 of 2015 and if she was accused under Section 307 of the I.P.C., in Mirzachouki P.S case no. 201 of 2015, the police should have arrested her but the fact that the police did not arrest her shows that no case under Section 307 I.P.C., was made out. Learned counsel has referred to the Injury Report, at Annexure-7, and submitted that the injury does not support the allegation of assault by sharp cutting weapon and the ingredients for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C., is not made out.
(2.) It is contended that earlier an informatory application bearing Information Petition no. 149 of 2015 (Annexure-3), was filed by the petitioner Baski Sharma @ Basuki Sharma before the C.J.M., wherein he expressed his apprehension that the informant of this case alongwith other accused persons in order to dispossess the petitioners from the house were likely to implicate them in false cases. That the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat has given certificate to the effect, that the informant Beena Devi is not a resident of the panchayat, and this shows that the present case has been lodged maliciously with intent and purpose to harass the petitioners.
(3.) It is urged that the ratio laid down in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp1 SCC 335 is applicable to the facts of the case and the court below should not have taken cognizance of the offence. It is argued by the learned counsel that the impugned order of taking cognizance has been passed in a mechanical and routine manner without appreciating the fact that as per injury report there is no ingredient to make out an offence under Section 307 I.P.C.;