Tilakdhari Singh vs Misri Singh

Macpheroson, J.—This rule is concerned with a dismissal under s 203 of a complaint of the petitioner against the opposite party; an application against winch dismissal was rejected by the Sessions Judge of Monghyr.

The petitioner had judged an information with the Police on 12th October that the opposite party had rioted armed with deadly weapons and committed theft, grievous hurt also being caused to complainant and one Beda Singh. The occasion of the not was alleged to be that on the previous day the petitioner had remonstrated with Misri Singh for blocking the public road by building on it and had threatened to bring a suit against Misri Singh who counter-threatened as to what he would do on the following morning.

The Police declined to send up the case holding the occurrence to bean affray u/s 160 of the Indian Penal Code which is non-cognizable. The petitioner impugned the Police report before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and his petition was treated as a complaint. The Magistrate directed him to summon his witnesses and the petitioner produced seven Avitnesses whose evidence the Magistrate heard. In his order the Magistrate pointed out that the witnesses had practically repeated the statement which they had made before the Police and which were before him, that none of them were disinterested, that the complainant had no right to interfere in connection with the alleged encroachment and had given the provocation. He added that witnesses had undoubtedly exaggerated the case very much and that it was impossible to base a conviction on such evidence as they gave.

On behalf of the petitioner it is now urged that the Magistrate did not take down the deposition of the witnesses and that his failure to do so was a material error. But in the first place, the Magistrate had before him the final report of the Police a detailed account of the statements of the witnesses before the Police and the witnesses repeated the same statement before him. We, therefore, know what the witnesses deposed and though ordinarily a summary of the statement should be made for further reference, there is no practical difficulty in the present instance.

In the second place it cannot be asserted that there has been an error of law since the Code makes no provision with regard to the manner in which the evidence in an enquiry u/s 202 should be recorded.

I am not prepared to hold that the Magistrate in this case acted unreasonably. Had the deposition of any witness deviated from the record of the previous statements which was before him, he would certainly have made a note to that effect.

The only point, therefore, is whether on the materials before him the dismissal of the complaint was unreasonable. I have carefully examined the papers in this case and the conclusion at which I have arrived is that it was not and that, as the Sessions Judge has remarked, further. Inquiry would not serve any useful purpose. The complainant apparently gave the provocation and owing to the factions in the village it is impossible to secure any disinterested evidence. There are serious contradictions on material points and it is very unlikely that any Court would convict upon the evidence adduced.

I consider, therefore, that no ground has been made out for interference with the dismissal of the petitioner''s complaint.

The Rule is accordingly discharged.