Shrimati Bachni vs Chanchal Singh

Dulat, Act. C.J. & Mahajan, J.—This appeal against acquittal by the complainant must be allowed on the short ground that the learned Magistrate has not at all taken notice of the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Bachni filed a complaint against Chanchal Singh under sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that she had been beaten and given obscene abuses by the accused Smt. Bachni appeared in support of the complaint and she also examined Teja Singh and Jit Singh as her witnesses..The leaned Magistrate framed a charge against the accused under sections 323 and 504, Indian Penal Code, on the 2lst of November, 1960. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. He pleaded not guilty to the same and wanted the case to be heard. The accused also stated that he wanted to cross-examine all the prosecution witnesses whose statements had been recorded. On the next date of hearing, that is, the 13th of December, 1960, the learned Magistrate passed the following order:-

The complainant, Mst. Bachni is absent. Her case was called out several times. She is absent without any reason. Hence this complaint be consigned to the record room for want of prosecution by the complainant. Chanchal Singh, accused is present. He is acquitted. * *

This order is illegal. Reference in this connection may be made to section 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is in these terms:-

When the proceedings have been instituted upon complaint, and upon any day fixed for the hearing of the case the complainant is absent, and the offence may be lawfully compounded, or is not a cognizable offence, the Magistrate may, in his discretion, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, at any time before the charge, has been framed discharge the accused.

It would be obvious from this provision of law that after the Charge has been framed only section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would come into play and the Magistrate can only proceed to acquit the accused if he could come to the conclusion on the evidence that the accused was not guilty. This would have necessitated the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses whose statements had already been recorded and the accused would have been entitled to lead his defence also. As the order of acquittal has been passed on the mere ground of absence of the complainant and that order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, there is no course open but to quash the same. We accordingly set aside the order of acquittal and direct that the accused be tried in accordance with law after he has been summoned. The case will now go back to the District Magistrate who will entrust it to a competent Magistrate for trial with a direction that notice of the date of hearing in this case be issued to both the complainant and the accused.