The duty of the trial court to consider all evidence and the need for a speaking order in the registration of a complaint case.

N.K. Gupta, J.

1. The applicants have preferred the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings of criminal complaint case No. 273/2009, pending before the JMFC, Chhindwara for offence under Sections 294, 506-B, 323, 342, 147, 148, 149 and 500 of IPC and Sections 3, 10, 11 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter it will be referred to as "Special Act").

2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the respondents No. 2 and 3 had lodged a criminal complaint before the CJM, Chhindwara on 28.3.1994 that the applicants being SHO and ASI at Police Station Kotwali, Chhindwara called the respondents No. 2 and 3 at Police station on 24.9.1994, at about 10 a.m. Jaya Bai, mother of the respondents No. 2 and 3 also accompanied them. The applicants and their companions shouted upon Jaya Bai to go away but, she could not go and therefore, the applicant No. 2 gave a slap on his face and therefore, swelling was caused on her mouth and thereafter, she went to her house. The respondents No. 2 and 3 were tortured. They had been abused with the words relating to their caste and assaulted by an iron rule on their backs. Both of them sustained injuries on their back, mouth and face. Again on 25.3.1994, Jaya Bai had moved an application under Section 57 of the Cr.P.C. before CJM and notice was given to the applicants then, the respondents No. 2 and 3 were released at about 8 p.m. on 25.3.1994. Thereafter, a complaint was filed for the aforesaid offences.

3. The Magistrate has passed an order under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and after due investigation, SDOP Chhindwara has submitted a written report in the case addressed to S.P.Chhindwara, in which it was found that the complaint was false and baseless. The respondents No. 2 and 3 were called for interrogation and in front of Manish Pandey and lady Constable Tilak, they were asked some questions and thereafter, they left in the evening of 24.3.1994. Again they were called on 25.4.1994 and again at 4 p.m. they permitted to leave the police station. Entries were made in the concerned Rojnamacha, which was duly maintained in the police station. After getting the report under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. The trial Court examined the various witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter registered a complaint case. Arrest warrants were issued against the applicants and on having knowledge of criminal complaint, they preferred the present petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that Ganpati Manekar and his wife Nirmala Manekar had been killed on 16.1.1994 by one Dilip Manekar alongwith his companions. The respondents No. 2 and 3 were the sisters of accused Dilip. Respondents No. 2 and 3 alongwith their mother were called for interrogation to know the whereabouts of absconding accused Dilip and interrogation took place before Manish Pandey, who accompanied the respondents No. 2 and 3 and lady constable Tilak and on both the days, the respondents No. 2 and 3 were permitted to go back to their house. Learned counsel for the applicants has also submitted that report under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. was negative and before registration of case, it was for the JMFC to consider the report submitted by the superior officers of the applicants. It is further submitted that the complaint was registered by order dated 5.7.1997, if that order is perused then, it is totally a non speaking order. The Magistrate did not apply his mind that there is no penal provision under Sections 10 and 11 of the Special Act. Various Sections of offences as mentioned in the complaint were reproduced in the order passed by the JMFC on 5.7.1997 and therefore, order is bad in the law.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 has submitted that the respondents No. 2 and 3 were not required for investigation in the murder case of Ganpati and his wife.