The rejection of the B-Summary Report was upheld due to prima facie evidence against police officers for assaulting and humiliating an informant, affirming the magistrate's duty to assess evidence thoroughly.

JUDGMENT :

URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.

1. By this revision, the applicants have challenged order dated 3.6.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli (learned Judge below) in B- Summary Case No.8/2023 by which process was issued against applicants for offences punishable under Sections 294 , 323, and 354(A)(iv) and 506 read with 34 of the IPC and 3(1)(4), 3(1)(s), (1)(w), (2)3, and (2)(va) of the The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Non-applicant No.2 (the informant) approached the police station for lodging FIR on 20.3.2018 as there was quarrel between her in-laws and relative Balaji and the said relative had caught hold of her husband Milind and, therefore, at about 9:00 am, she along with her husband went to the police station to lodge the report. At the relevant time, applicant No.1 was present who convinced and suggested the informant not to lodge the FIR and maintain peace. The informant and her husband met the applicants and applicant No.1 allegedly used abusive words against them and humiliated and insulted them and had also beaten the husband of the informant by means of belt. It is further alleged that he slapped the informant twice and used abusive words on her caste. Thereafter, she was pushed out of the police station, but due to fear, the informant and her husband returned back to their house. Thereafter, applicant No.2 came there and threatened both ladies present along with the informant and, thereafter, applicant No.2 insulted and abused the informant and also assaulted her physically. They went for medical examination to the Primary Health Centre, Karwafa, but as the said Primary Health Centre was closed, they approached the Government Hospital at Gadchiroli whereat they were admitted for treatment. On the basis of the said report, the police registered the crime.

3. During investigation, statements of various witnesses were recorded and as the investigating officer could not found any substance in the allegations, he submitted B-Summary Report and the same came to be rejected by learned Judge below.

Hence, this revision.

4. Heard learned counsel Shri R.R.Vyas for the applicants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri C.A.Lokhande for the State, and learned counsel Mrs. Punam Pisurde appointed for the informant.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the entire investigation carried out by the investigation officer reveals that in the alleged incident the informant and her husband were assaulted and humiliated at public place. He submitted that it is imperative on the part of learned Judge below to assign reasons while rejecting the B-Summary Report. He invited my attention to the order impugned in the revision and submitted that the said order nowhere reveals any reasoning while rejecting the B-Summary Report. No separate reasons are assigned and also learned Judge below has not taken into consideration that the entire statements of the witnesses nowhere support the case of the informant as far as the provisions of the Atrocity Act are concerned.

He further raised the issue that an appropriate sanction was not obtained in view of Section 197 of the CrPC as the alleged act was committed by the applicants while discharging their official duty and, therefore, he prays that the revision be allowed.

6. In support of his con