Magistrate cannot issue process under Cr.P.C. after Section 202 inquiry reports deeming complaint false due to enmity, relying only on prior insufficient preliminary evidence; quashing justified as abuse of process in civil land dispute counterblast. (32 words)

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

1. The petitioners, through the medium of present petition, have challenged complaint filed by the respondent-complainant against them alleging commission of offences under Sections 451,323,504, 506 & 34 RPC, which is stated to be pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sunderbani (hereinafter referred to as the “trial Magistrate”). Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 18.11.2013 passed by the learned trial Magistrate whereby, after recording satisfaction that offences under Sections 451, 323, 504, 506 & 34 RPC are made out against the petitioners, process has been issued against them.

2. As per the allegations made in the impugned complaint, on 03.03.2013 at about 7:30 a.m., the petitioners/accused forcibly encroached upon the land belonging to the respondent-complainant, which is comprised in Khasra No. 1161 measuring 14 kanals and 8 marlas, situated at village Siot, Tehsil, Sunderbani. It is alleged in the complaint that when the respondent- complainant resisted the encroachment of the aforesaid land by the petitioners, they entered into the residential house of the respondent-complainant and gave a beating to him with kicks and fists. They also hurled abuses upon the respondent-complainant. It is alleged that some witnesses came on the spot and saved the respondent-complainant from clutches of the petitioners-accused, otherwise, they would have committed his murder.

3. After filing of the complaint, the learned trial Magistrate recorded preliminary evidence of the complainant in the shape of his statement and that of one witness, namely Khem Raj. However, vide order dated 04.03.2013, the learned trial Magistrate, in order to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint, ordered an inquiry in terms of Section 202 of Cr.P.C through SHO Police Station Dharamsaal. Pursuant to the said order, the SHO conducted the inquiry and submitted his report dated 03.04.2013 before the learned trial Magistrate. In the said report, the SHO, after recording the statements of witnesses acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, reached a conclusion that the allegations made in the complaint are false and that the complaint has been made to wreak vengeance upon the petitioners with whom the complainant has a long-standing enmity.

4. On 18.05.2013, the learned trial Magistrate considered the inquiry report of the SHO and, after feeling dissatisfied with the same, the Inquiry Officer was directed to undertake a fresh inquiry, record the statements of the eyewitnesses and come up with a fresh report. SHO Police Station, Dharamsaal, the Inquiry Officer, again conducted the inquiry and came up with a report dated 25.06.2013. The Inquiry Officer, after recording statements of the witnesses, again came to the conclusion that the allegations made in the impugned complaint are based upon falsehood, as the neighbours of the complainant have not deposed anything about the alleged occurrence, even though the complainant and two witnesses, namely Khem Raj and Kewal Kishore, have substantiated the allegations made in the impugned complaint.

5. The second inquiry report was considered by the learned trial Magistrate on 18.11.2013. Upon perusal of the same, and after taking into account the preliminary statements of the complainant and his witness Khem Raj recorded on 04.03.2013, the learned trial Magistrate recorded satisfaction that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioners/accused and that offences under Sections 451, 3