The main legal point established in the judgment is that the closure of the pre-charge evidence of the complainant resulted in a miscarriage of justice, warranting the court to intervene and set aside the order.

V.M.Jain, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant-petitioner, seeking quashment of the order dated 21.4.1998, passed by the CJM, closing the pre-charge evidence of the complainant-petitioner, by the order of the Court and adjourning the case for arguments on the question of charge.

2. The facts, in brief, are that complainant-petitioner, Ram Mehar had filed a criminal complaint under Sections 323/325/427/452/504/506, IPC, against accused respondent Nos. 2 to 8 namely Mamu Ram, etc. After recording preliminary evidence, these respondents were summoned as accused and the case was fixed for pre-charge evidence. On 21.4.1998, after noticing that no pre- charge evidence was present and there was no justification for granting any further opportunity, the learned CJM closed the pre-charge evidence of the complainant by Court order and adjourned the case to 1.6.1998, the date already fixed in the connected case, for arguments on the question of charge. Aggrieved against this order dated 21.4.1998, passed by the learned CJM, the complainant filed the present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. in this Court.

3. In the present petition, it had been alleged by the complainant-petitioner that Miss Sheela, sister of the petitioner, had lodged FIR 205 dated 26.7.1992 under Sections 354/451, IPC, in Police Station, Urlana, against respondent No. 7, Hukam Chand. It was further alleged that respondent No.7, Hukam Chand, got registered a false case, bearing FIR 212 dated 30.7.1992 under, Sections 325/34, IPC, in Police Station, Urlana, against all the family members of the petitioner namely Maha Singh, Ram Mehar, Ram Bhaj, Zile Singh, Bhim Singh, Prem Singh, Kuldip Singh, Sheela and Khazani. It was alleged that the said FIR was registered on the statement of respondent No.7, Hukam Chand, with regard to the occurrence, which had allegedly taken place on 24.7.1992. It was alleged that the said case was pending in the Court of CJM, Panipat. Copies of the orders dated 24.3.1998 and 21.4.1998, passed by the CJM in the said case, were attached as Annexures P-1 and P-2. It was further alleged that on 27.8.1992, the petitioner was taking his meals in his house and at that time, his mother, Smt. Khazani, and sister, Ms. Sheela, were also present and at that time, accused respondent Nos. 2 to 7 entered the house of the petitioner along with Lathis and started abusing the petitioner with filthy language and threatened to kill him. It was further alleged that they pushed Smt. Khazani and Ms Sheela and gave beatings with lathis to the petitioner, who received 13 injuries. It was alleged that on the alram raised by him, he was saved by Ant Ram and Bhim Singh, neighbourers. It was alleged that the petitioner was admitted in Civil Hospital, Panipat, where the doctor had medico-legally examined him. It was further alleged that the petitioner had gone to Police Station on 28.8.1992 for registration of a case, but the concerned SHO did not register the case, whereupon on 29.8.1992, the petitioner filed a complaint under Sections 323/325/427/452/504/506, IPC,against accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 8 and that the same was pending before the CJM, Panipat. Copies of the orders dated 24.3.1998 and 21.4.1998, passed in the said criminal complaint, were attached as Annexures P-3 and P-4. It was alleged that when the petitioner had filed the criminal complaint, the list of witnesses was given on the last page of the complaint. The said list included, the complainant- petitioner as one of the witnesses, besides Smt. Khazani. and Ms. Sheela, Ant Ram, Bhim Singh and Dr.PK Nigam.

It was alleged that after, recording the preliminary evidence of the complainant, the CJM summoned the accused and the case was fixed for recording pre-charge evidence. It was alleged that since the cases were against both sides, both the cases were being taken up together by the CJM since long. It was alleged that in the Police case, bearing FIR 212 dated 3