Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh, J. (Oral)—Heard Mr. Harendra Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Arun Kumar Tiwary,
learned counsel duly assisted by Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate on Record and Mr. Rajendra Singh Shastri, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. By way of the present application preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ""CrPC""), the petitioners
seek quashing of the order dated 12.11.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, II, Khagaria in Cr. Revision No. 76 of 2013,
whereby and where under the revisional court has set aside the order dated 26.08.2013 passed by the learned Magistrate in exercise of power
conferred under Section 203 of the CrPC in Complaint Case No. 384 C of 2011.
3. The petitioners were named in the Complaint Case No. 384 C of 2011 as accused along with six others. The aforesaid complaint was filed by
opposite party no. 2 Md. Usman on 16th May, 2011 for an occurrence which took place on 13.05.2011 at about 2 p.m. It is alleged in the
complaint that when the complainant was present on his field, the accused persons being variously armed with pistol came to his field and upon
order of accused no. 8 Sudhir Singh, the Officer-in-Charge of Beldaur Police Station, Khagaria, they started harvesting the wheat and maize crop
on the field. It is also alleged that accused no. 1 to 5, namely, Sonu Singh, Sunil Singh, Kishore Singh, Binod Singh and Navin Singh tied his hands
and thrashed him on the ground. They harvested 200 maund of wheat crop and 50 mound of maize crop standing over 7 Bigahas of land of the
complainant as detailed in the complaint petition and they loaded the harvested crop on a tractor and went away. It is further alleged in the
complaint that after the accused persons left the place, the witnesses present at the place of occurrence untied the hands of the complainant. In the
complaint petition, one Maheshwar Yadav and one Manohar Muni were named as witnesses to the occurrence.
4. The complainant was examined on oath and apart from the complainant in course of inquiry only one witness, namely, Maheshwar Yadav was
examined under Section 202 of the CrPC. In his statement on oath, the complainant has stated that on the relevant date and time of occurrence,
when he was present on his filed, the accused Sonu Singh came there and started abusing and thereafter, accused Sonu Singh, Sunil Singh,
Kishore, Binod and Sri Ranbindra Singh tied his hands and thrashed him on the ground. They also assaulted him with fists and slaps and looted the
standing wheat and maize crops from his field. He has categorically stated that apart from what has been stated above nothing else had happened
on the date of occurrence.
5. The only inquiry witness, namely, Maheshwar Yadav, who was examined under Section 202 of the CrPC, has stated that on the relevant date
and time of occurrence it was accused Sudhir Singh who had ordered to harvest the standing crops, pursuant to which accused Phool Singh, Sonu
Singh, Navin Singh, Binod Singh, Jivo Singh, Sunil Singh and Kishore Singh tied the hands of the complainant and thrashed him on the ground. He
has stated that apart from the aforesaid accused persons, there were 100-150 unknown persons who had looted the complainant''s standing wheat
and maize crops from his field. He has further alleged that the accused persons took away the crops on a truck from the place of occurrence.
6. Considering the discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses examined during inquiry, learned Jurisdictional Magistrate dismissed the complaint
vide order dated 26.08.2013 as contained in annexure-3 to the present application in exercise of power conferred under Section 203 of the
CrPC. The said order dated 26.08.2013 was challenged by the complainant before the revisional court vide Cr. Revision No. 76 of 2013. After
hearing the parties, the revisional Court has set aside the order of the learned Magistrate mainly on the ground that the learned Magistrate had not
discussed in his order regarding the discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses examined during inquiry vide impugned order dated 12.11.2014.
7. Mr. Harendra Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention towards the statements of the complainant made on
oath and the evidence of the inquiry witness no. 1 Maheshwar Yadav. He has pointed out that material allegations made in the complaint have not
been supported by the complainant while being examined on oath and the statement of the complainant is further contradicted in material particular
by the sole witness examined under Section 202 of the CrPC.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Arun Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has submitted that there is no error in the order passed by
the revisional court and in view of the fact that no proper reason was assigned by the learned Magistrate while dismissing the complaint in exercise
of power conferred under Section 203 CrPC, the revisional Court has rightly set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate. He has further
contended that the complainant has fully supported the allegations made in the complaint during examination on oath and his statement has duly
been corroborated by the inquiry witness no. 1 Maheshwar Yadav.
9. Mr. Rajendra Singh Shastri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that the points taken by the petitioners can only be
considered at the appropriate stage of trial and not at the stage of taking cognizance of the offences. He has submitted that in view of the
allegations made in the complaint and the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 of the CrPC and the statement of inquiry
witness no. 1 recorded under Section 202 of the CrPC, a prima facie case to summon the accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323,
441 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code is made out.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I find substance in the arguments made by the learned counsel for the
petitioners. He has rightly submitted that the material facts alleged in the complaint have not been supported. I find that there is no allegation in the
complaint that any one abused the complainant but while being examined on solemn affirmation the complainant has stated that it was accused
Sonu Singh who started abusing him first. Further in the complaint petition altogether eight persons, including the petitioners have been made
accused but while being examined on oath the complainant has not whispered a single word against accused no. 6 to 8, namely, Fool Singh, Om
Prakash Singh and Sudhir Singh, the Officer-in-Charge of Beldaur Police Station. Furthermore, in the complaint it has been alleged that looted
crops were loaded on a tractor and taken away by the accused persons but the complainant has not stated anything in this regard while being
examined on oath. I further notice that though it is alleged in the complainant that the witnesses present at the place of occurrence untied the hands
of the complainant after the accused had left the place of occurrence, there is no such evidence in the statement of the complainant made on oath.
11. Apart from the discrepancies in the evidence of the complainant as noted above, I further find that the inquiry witness no. 1 Maheshwar Yadav
has tried to improve the case in his deposition by stating that about 100-150 labourers also accompanied the accused persons in harvesting the
standing crops. There is no such allegation in the complaint. It is absolutely a new story being created by a witness examined in course of inquiry.
Another glaring aspect of the matter is that in the complaint petition it is stated that looted crops were loaded and transported by the accused
persons on a tractor but the inquiry witness no. 1 Maheshwar Yadav has stated that the accused persons took away the looted crops on a truck.
12. In my opinion, the discrepancies noted above were sufficient for the Magistrate to disbelieve the complainant''s case and dismiss the complaint
in exercise of power conferred under Section 203 of the CrPC. In my considered opinion, the revisional court has failed to appreciate the
aforesaid discrepancies in the case of the complainant and has erroneously set aside the order passed by the Magistrate.
13. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 12.11.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, II, Khagaria in Cr. Revision
No. 76 of 2013 is set aside and quashed. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
