Ashok Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

R.A. Singh, J.—This application has been moved u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 3.6.2008, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Orai, under Sections 504 and 506, I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in Complaint Case No. 3/2008.

The brief facts giving rise to this application in this Court are that applicant is a respectable person of district Jalaun and has been carrying on his business of commission agent in Galla Mandi in the name of his firm "Prem Kishor Ashok Kumar", while the complainant Raghunath Prasad being a leader of Bahujan Samaj Party is engaged in extracting the money from the businessmen and respectable persons in the Mandi in the name of goonda tax. The complainant Raghunath Prasad demanded Rs. 30,000 from the applicant, who refused to make payment of the same, which annoyed the complainant, who concocting a false story moved an application u/s 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure before Chief Judicial Magistrate to this effect on 9.9.2007, at about 2 p.m. The complainant Raghunath Prasad alongwith Baladeen and Hari Ram reached the house of the applicant Ashok Kumar and asked him to make payment of the price of his produce, at which the accused-applicant thus with intention to insult abused him by saying "madarchod chamra wale teri kya aukat ki tu mujhse rupaya bapas le".

A report was called by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate from the police on the said application and the police submitted its report in favour of the applicant. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the said applicant to be registered as complaint case vide order dated 19.12.2007. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Orai recorded the statement of complainant u/s 200, Code of Criminal Procedure and his witnesses Baladeen and Hari Ram u/s 202, Code of Criminal Procedure and summoned the applicant for trial under Sections 504 and 506, I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x), Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, vide his order dated 3.6.2008.

The learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that the Chief Judicial Magistrate ignored the police report and relied on the statements of witnesses Hari Ram and Baladeen while the statements of complainant and his witnesses were contradictory to each other. It has however been submitted that the complainant and his witnesses have been running the group of goondas and extracting the money from the citizens by way of threatening them and instituting the false cases and thus they have abused the process of law.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, on this application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure and perused the record. A perusal of the copy of the complaint the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202, Code of Criminal Procedure and police report shows that a prima facie Offence u/s 504, I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are made out against the applicant. This argument of the learned Counsel for the applicant cannot be looked into at this stage that the contradictions in their statements have occurred, because it is only the trial Court which would look into this question as to whether their evidence can be relied on. So far as the question of police report is concerned, the same cannot be termed as evidence. The Magistrate calls for the police report on the application u/s 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure in order to ascertain as to whether any first information report has been lodged at Police Station in respect of the same occurrence and the police is not required to furnish its report about truth of the same.

The learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that the complainant and his witnesses have formed a gang of goondas with intention to extract the money from the citizens and they have also concocted this false story and moved the application u/s 156(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, when the applicant refused to pay the amount demanded by them. This contention cannot be accepted at this stage in absence of any evidence on record in this regard. This can be the defence of the applicant and he will be entitled to take the same during trial in the Court below and lead the evidence accordingly.

So far as this argument is concerned that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate could not direct the application moved u/s 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure to be registered as complaint case instead of directing the police to register the first information report on the basis of the same. It has been settled by this Court in various decisions that the Magistrate can either direct the police to register the first information report on the basis of the application moved u/s 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure or direct it to be registered as a complaint case.

In view of above discussions, the learned Magistrate has not committed any illegality or irregularity in directing the above application u/s 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure to be registered as complaint case and thus the impugned order dated 3.6.2008, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot be set aside. Consequently, application moved u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure is liable to be dismissed and thus it stands dismissed. However, it is directed that the Courts below may dispose of the bail application of the applicant the same day, if possible, if he appears before the Court below within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and moves application for bail.