Kumari Anita Singh vs Ram Babu Singh

V.P. Mathur, J.—This petition is being disposed of finally. It appears that a complaint purporting to be under Sections 342, 364 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged by Ram Babu Singh against eight persons namely Suresh Chandra Shivahare, Hari Shankar Shivahare, Girish Chandra, Bhupendra Shivahare, Mahesh Chandra Shivahare, Satish Chandra Shivahare, Surendra Shivahare and Anilbabu Shivahare. The allegations were that these persons were forcibly detaining his wife in their house and treating her with cruelty and obtaining her signatures and thumb marks on various documents and there was likelihood that they may put to end her life. It is contended that he had received a letter from his wife on 24-11-1987. It appears to have been written on 20-11-1987. On the basis of this he is now extremely apprehensive that his wife may be murdered. Hence he has requested the Magistrate to take prompt action in the matter. In his petition be has named Bhagwan Dass, Satya Prakash, Badri Prasad and others as witnesses of the occurrence, but, even though she has not been named, his wife Anita Singh will be a proper witness in the case. For that purpose he has moved an application purporting to be u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure asking the learned Magistrate to issue bailable warrants for her arrest and production in the court so that her examination as a witness may be made.

I feel that the learned Magistrate has been a little hasty in passing the impugned order dated 15-12-1987. He should have called upon the applicant first to examine the witnesses named [in the complaint i.e. Bhagwandass, Satya Prakash and Badri Prasad and if the applicant further needed to examine Anita Singh, then normal summons or notice to her should have been sent rather than the issue of a bailable warrant. Only if it is found that either she is not being served an account of interference by the opposite parties or for any other reasons ; or is not attending the Court inspite of service or knowledge of the issue of summons, and in support thereof an affidavit is given, then the learned Magistrate can proceed further in procuring her ''presence by issuing warrant or in any other manner. Presently therefore the order dated 15-12-1987 is uncalled for and stands quashed. The learned Magistrate may however proceed with the case according to law and if Anita Singh is required to be examined as a witness, a summons for her appearance may be issued and then further action in the matter may be taken according to law.

A copy of this order be issued to the learned Counsel for the applicant on payment of requisite fee.