R.N.Goyal vs S.S.Chaudhary

S. S. Grewal, J. (Oral)

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) relates to quashment of order dated 15th November, 1988, Annexure P/5, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, whereby complaint filed by the present petitioner under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code against the present respondent was dismissed, as well as the order dated 5th September. 1989, Annexure P/11, passed by the Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, in the revision filed by the present petitioner.

In brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition which emerge from the complaint filed by the present, petitioner, are that as per transfer order dated 4th February, 1988, the complainant attended the Head Office at 9 A.M. on 5th February, 1988. The complainant after marking his attendance in the register had sat in his chair when the accused came in the room and pounced upon him, rebuking him as to how the complainant dared to sit in the chair since the complainant was transferred the other day to Amritsar. The accused slapped and gave filthy abuses and blows to the complainant and thereby caused hurt to the complainant.

The learned Magistrate after recording the evidence of the complainant and his two other witnesses and perusing the documentary evidence, heard the counsel for the complaint and without summoning the accused the complaint was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the parties were heard.

On behalf of the petitioner it was mainly (Sic) oral evidence led by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate was sufficient to summon the accused and at that stage the learned Magistrate was not to weigh the evidence and that the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are illegal and perverse. The argument is devoid of any merit. Under Section 203 of the Code the Court was only to consider the statements of the complainant and his witnesses and the result of enquiry or investigation, if any, under Section 202 of the Code and then the Magistrate has to form his opinion whether there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and in that eventuality he was to dismiss the complaint after recording his reasons.

In Nirmal Singh Hoon v. State of West Bengal and another, 1973 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 521 it was observed by the apex Court that the words "sufficient, ground" used in Section 203 and, in Section 209 have been construed to mean the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the person accused by the evidence of witnesses entitled to a reasonable degree of credit, and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction.

The learned Magistrate in the impugned order has rightly observed that there was inordinate delay of more than two months in filing the complaint. The complainant neither produced the application sent to the Police Station, Sector 17, Chandigarh, for registration of the case, nor he proved the copy, of the telegram which he said to have left at the residence of the Governor. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application for registration of the case finds mention in the record relating to the complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondent, would not per se constitute legal evidence particularly when the complainant failed to get the same duly proved on the record of the trial Court. Secondly no medical evidence in the instant case was produced and the Courts below have rightly held that there is no sufficient ground for summoning the accused in the instant case. No other illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

This petition is accordingly dismissed.