Back
1983 Supreme(Guj) 3
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :G.T.NANAVATI, I.C.BHATT
PANDIT AMULAKHCHAND BANSIDHAR BHARGAV - Appellant
Versus
RANCHHODBHAI MANIBHAI PATEL - Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION 87 of 1982
Decided On : 01/12/1983
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code 1973 - Sections 2e0 216 217And 210 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - Damaging window panes and doors of his house - Weapons like sticks chains pipes hockey sticks etc - Magistrate committed an illegality and acted without jurisdiction in two proceedings together under section 210 - It was also urged that in absence of any provision to that effect in Code - Magistrate had no power to amalgamate or consolidate two cases and proceed with them as one single case instituted upon a charge sheet - It was also urged in alternative that even if it is held that Court independently of section 210 has such a power it ought not to have exercised same in this case in view of allegations made by complainant in his complaint - Whether independently of sec. 210 it was permissible for the learned Magistrate to amalgamate the two cases – Held, It is true that he did so in exercise of power under section210 of Code but merely because reliance was placed on a wrong provision of law it cannot be said that had no power to do so - In court it is always open to Court to amalgamate two proceedings and proceed with them as one case only if that becomes necessary in order to avoid two parallel proceedings going on against same accused for same offences - Therefore second contention raised by cannot be accepted - His Lordship then observed that in instant case complainant had stated in his complaint that police had not taken down complaint properly and that investigation carried on by them was not at all fair and impartial - A definite allegation was made against police that they were siding with accused – Application allowed.
( 1 ) THE applicant who is the original complainant moved the police in the first instance and then the Court with respect to the incident which had taken place on 10-9-1979. On that day at about 9-00 p. m. Ran chhodbhai Manibhai opponent No. 1 (original accused No. 1) who is staying opposite to his house came near his house and started abusing him. He complained that the son of the complainant had thrown dust on his scooter. As the accused was uttering abuses the complainant asked him to keep quiet. He continued abusing. Therefore the complainant went inside his house and closed the doors. Accused No. 1 who is staying with his kept and doing transport business in the name of Deesa Transport Co. called some of his supporters who are known as German Gang. They all then came in his house at about 11-00 a. m. They were all armed with weapons like sticks chains pipes hockey sticks etc. They started damaging window panes and the doors of his house. He got frightened and to save himself ran away from the back door. It is his case that a crowd of about 30 persons committed trespass in his house and damaged his furniture and other articles of the value of about Rs. 4 0 Many persons of the society had collected near his house but non intervened as they were all afraid of accused No. 1 and his associates. After running away from his house he contacted Raopura Police Station and because of that message given by him a police van was sent to his house. The police then started recording his complaint. At that time accused No. 1 also came to the police station. Because of his influence the police officers instead of taking down his complaint in the way he wanted to give became angry with him did not allow him to speak further and wrote it down the way they liked. Thereafter his signature was taken on it. He was initially not willing to sign the same; and therefore the police took a counter complaint from accused No. 1 against him. As the police had not taken his complaint properly he tried to contact the D. S. P. and the Collector on telephone but they were not available. He therefore rang up I. G. P. at Ahmedabad He was advised to contact Dy. S. P. at Baroda. Before he could contact the Dy. S. P. Inspector Desai arrested him. Sometime thereafter his brother approached the police for getting him released. He was asked to produce a knife after purchasing it from the market. His brother thought that there was no other alternative of getting the complainant released and therefore he did whatever the police asked him to do. After he was released from the custody he wrote to the Government about what had happened. Again on 13-9-1979 he sent one letter to the Government and copies to various other authorities but nothing was done either by the Government or by the police officers except that on 10-10-1979 the police filed a charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 and 2 only for the offences punishable under secs. 451 427 323 504 506 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. As no further action was taken by the police even after receiving the letter dated 10-10-1979 the complainant filed a complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class Vadodara on 26-11-1979 against 6 accused whom he had identified as his assailants. The case which was instituted upon the charge sheet was registered as Criminal Case No. 1539 of 1979. The case instituted upon the complaint was registered as Criminal Case No. 1844 of 1979.
( 2 ) IN the police case charge was framed on 7-3-1980 and thereafter evidence of 2 witnesses was recorded. In the private case also summonses were issued on 7-3-1980 and a charge was framed against all the six accused. On 31-7-1980 the learned advocate for the accused gave an application Exh. 10 for consolidating both the cases and proceeding further with the case as one instituted upon a charge sheet. That application was opposed by the complainant. The learned Magistrate relying upon sec. 2e0 of the Code of Cri
