Harnandan Das vs Atul Kumar Prasad and Others

Kulwant Sahay, J.—This is an application against an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Madhipura dismissing the complaint of the petitioner u/s 203, Criminal P.C. The order has been upheld by the District Magistrate of Bhagalpur when a petition of revision was filed before him. It appears that on 27th November 1923 the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate charging the accused persons who are the opposite party in the present application with having uprooted a bamboo dhwaja or flag and demolished a platform near the temple of Mahabirji of which the petitioner alleges to be the shebait. He further complained that the accused persons had waylaid the petitioner while he was going to the police station to lodge information about the occurrence and to have assaulted him and snatched away his wrapper and a sum of Rs. 21 which he had about him. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate by his order, dated 27th November, ordered an inquiry to be made by Babu Kali Prasanna Banerji, Tahsildar of the Burdwan Estate, u/s 202, Criminal P.C. There was, however, some delay, in the papers being sent to Babu Kali Prasanna Banerji, and before the order could be communicated to him he had left the place for Burdwan. It appears that the peshkar was responsible for this delay. Thereupon one Babu Tej Narain Sinha, Honorary Magistrate, was requested to make the inquiry and submit a report. He submitted his report on 9th February 1924, in which he stated that the allegation of the complainant about the dhwaja being uprooted by the creatures of the zamindar was true but that his other allegations about the theft of money and of the wrapper were exaggerations. It further appears from his report that the dispute is going on between the petitioner and Atul Kumar Prasad alias Tulo Kumar the opposite party in the proceeding, who is a zamindar of the village, and that in a suit brought by the petitioner for a declaration of his title and possession of certain land against Tulo Kumar he has obtained a decree for possession and that it was on account of the dispute between the parties that Tulo Babu ordered the dhwaja to be uprooted and the platform to be demolished. Now, on receipt of this report, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate by his order, dated 12th February 1924, dismissed the complaint u/s 203, without giving any reason whatsoever. His order of 12th February 1924, runs thus:

Dismissed; Section 203, Criminal P.C., vide inquiry report.

Now, u/s 203, Criminal P.C., it was incumbent upon the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to record briefly his reason for dismissing the complaint. No reasons whatsoever are given in his order of 12th February 1924. He merely refers to the report of the Honorary Magistrate, but on referring to the report of the Honorary Magistrate it appears that the allegations of the petitioner about the uprooting of the dhwaja and the demolition of the chabutra are correct. If that is so the matter ought to have been inquired into. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has sent a long explanation in reply to the notice issued by this Court, but he deals with matters which are wholly irrelevant to the present application and no one has appeared on behalf of the accused persons to show cause against the present application, I think the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate dismissing the complaint; u/s 203, is bad in law and ought to be set aside and the case must be sent back to him for disposal according to law.