The essential ingredients of the offence must be present for a complaint to be rejected, and the Trial Court must exercise judicial discretion and application of judicial mind.

R.S. Garg, J.

1. By this revision petition, the applicant seeks to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the order dated 2-11-2000 passed in unregistered criminal case (Elisha Walker v. Smt. Kusum Pushpa Tirki), rejecting the complainant's complaint.

2. Shri A.N. Bhakt, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the applicant had examined this ownself and had examined one witness in support of his contention that the accused persons committed the alleged offence. According to him, the learned Trial Court called for the report from the police station. The said police authority submitted before the Court that the present complaint appeared to be counter-blast to exert pressure upon the accused persons. The learned Trial Court by the order impugned observed that the complaint appeared to be belated and a counter-blast of a criminal case registered against the present applicant on the complaint of the accused persons. It accordingly rejected the application. According to him, the Court below was not entitled to reject the complaint only on the basis of the police report.

3. Shri Beriwal, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the Court below had jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence in its true perspective and if on the basis of police report it held that no cognizance could be taken in the matter, then it was absolutely justified. He further submits that from the police report it would clearly appear that the present complaint was in fact a counter-blast to the complaint lodged by the accused persons against the present applicant.

4. I have heard the parties at length.

5. Undisputedly, on a report lodged by some of the accused persons, crime number 42/2000 for offences punishable under Sections 294 and 506 Part-II of IPC was registered by the police and challan had already been filed before a Competent Court. The present complaint was filed almost after eight months of the earlier incident. The applicant submitted that on the date of incident when he had gone to meet the non-applicant No. 1, who happened to be wife of the present applicant, the co-accused manhandled him, caused him injuries, boarded him in a jeep and continued beating him. The complaint further says that the police instead of taking cognizance of his report arrested him under Section 151, Cr.PC and produced him before the Executive Magistrate, where he had to remain in jail, at least for five days.

6. In support of the complaint, the complainant examined his ownself and stated that he had gone to the place of the accused persons where the non-applicant No. 1 intimidated him, the non-applicant No. 2 caused him injuries and when he fell on ground the other accused persons surrounded him and caused him number of injuries. He has further stated that he was boarded in a jeep and was taken to some distance but in the meanwhile the beating continued. He also stated before the Court that he was sent for his medical and despite positive medical report the police did not do anything in the matter.

7. On the material aspects, he is supported by his witness who was examined under Section 202, Cr.PC. It appears from the records that the learned Trial Court called for the police report. The police submitted the report that present appeared to be a counter-blast to the report lodged by the accused persons. The learned Trial Court took cognizance of the police report, took the same into consideration and observed that the belated filing of the complaint was to show that the present applicant had filed the complaint only to meet the criminal case which was registered against him.

8. Section 210, Cr.PC reads as under:--

"210. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence.-- (1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is mad,e to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an in