Ramjeevan vs State of Rajasthan and Others

R.S. Chauhan, J.—The complainant-petitioner, Ramjeevan, has challenged the order dt. 13.06.2003 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa whereby the learned Judge has quashed and set aside the order dt. 03.01.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bandikui wherein the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance for offences under Sections 143, 323 & 504 IPC against the accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 6.

The brief facts of the case are that on 27.09.2000, the complainant, Ramjeevan, had filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate. According to him, on 26.09.2000, around 9:00 PM to 10:00 PM, while he was sitting inside his house, he heard some noises outside the house. When he came outside the house, he found the accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 6 armed with lathis & sticks (�SI). He also discovered that they were taking apart his tractor which was parked in front of the house. When he protested it, they chased him inside the house and assaulted him with kicks & lathis. After recording the statements of the complainant and his witnesses, vide order dt. 03.01.2003, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused-respondents Nos. 2 to 6 for offences as aforementioned. Since the accused-respondents were aggrieved by the cognizance order, they filed a revision petition before the learned Judge. Vide order dt. 13.06.2003, the learned Judge quashed and set aside the cognizance order dt. 03.01.2003. Since the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dt. 13.06.2003, he has filed the present petition before this Court.

Ms. Manju Meena, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-complainant, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has given three reasons for quashing and setting aside the cognizance order : firstly, there is animosity between the complainant and the accused-respondents; secondly, the complainant has not submitted any injury report to corroborate the fact that he was physically assaulted by the accused-respondents; thirdly, the complainant does not tell the Court as to what insulting words were used against him, and yet a cognizance for offence u/s 504 IPC has been taken against the accused-respondents. According to the learned Counsel, at the stage of taking cognizance, the trial Court is concerned only with the existence of a prima facie case. The statements of the complainant and his witnesses clearly make out a prima facie case against the accused-respondents. Moreover, it was not for the learned Judge to find fault with the statements of the complainant and his witnesses at the initial stage. Merely because the injury report has not been submitted, it''would not dilute the veracity of the statement made by the complainant and his witnesses. Thus, the learned Judge was not justified in shifting through the evidence and concluding that no prima facie case is made out against the accused-respondents. Hence, according to the learned Counsel, the learned Judge has over-stepped his jurisdiction.

On the other hand, Ms. Alka Bhatnagar, the learned public prosecutor, has contended that the learned Judge was justified in lifting the veil and in concluding that because of the animosity, a false case has been registered against the accused respondents. Hence, she has supported the impugned order.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

A bare perusal of the statement of the complainant clearly reveals that he had named the accused-respondents as having assaulted him. Moreover, his statement has been corroborated by Mr. Prahalad, Mr. Gulab and Smt. Kokli. Thus, a prima facie case does exist against the accused-respondents.

It is, indeed, trite to state that at the time of taking cognizance, the Court is not permitted to shift through the evidence. A cognizance is taken only on the basis of existence of a prima facie case. The statements of the complainant and of his witnesses have established a prima facie case against the accused-respondents. Hence, the learned Judge was not justified in shifting through the evidence and finding fault with the same.

Therefore, in this view of the matter, the revision petition is, hereby, allowed. The order dt, 13.06.2003 is, hereby, quashed and set aside; the order dt. 03.01.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate is, hereby, confirmed.