G.K. Sharma, J.@mdashThis Misc. Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dt. 5-6-87 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate. Jhalawar for taking cognizance against the petitioner u/s 342, 330, 331, 342 and 147 IPC.
2. A complaint was filed by Onkar Singh against 10 persons alleging that his son Rajendra Singh was taken by the Police-people to Police Station Jhalawar where he was being beaten by the accused-persons. The learned CJM recorded the statement of Onkar Singh u/s 200 and statements of six persons u/s 202 Cr.P.C.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that absolutely there is no evidence against these petitioners Man Singh and Bharat Singh have not been named by the witnesses in their statements given u/s 202. Cr.P.C. The name of Prem Chand was mentioned by these witnesses but the statement against this petitioner is that he was arrested in a case and was called by the Circle Inspector Bhawani Sing and was asked to cut the hairs of Rajendra Singh which he did. Except this allegation there is no other allegation against this petition.
4. Notice of this petition was given to Onkar Singh-complainant, bus he did not appear in spite of service of the notice. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the (SIC) After reading the order of the learned CJM, I found that this is absolutely no order. It was his duty to summon the evidence before taking cognizance specially when there is no evidence at all against the petitioners. This order of the learned CJM. is superficial order and it is unfortunate that the subordinate Courts did not apply their minds before taking cognizance in the matters. After reading the statements of witnesses Rajendra Singh, Poonam Chand, Pratap, Ratan Lal, Mahendra Kumar and Ahmed I find that there is not a single word against Man Singh and Bharat Singh. The allegation against Prem Chand is that he was called by the Cl and was asked to cut the hair of Rajendra Singh which be did. Prem Chand was already in Jail and he was asked by the Police Officer to do that act and in compliance of that order if he had cut the hair of Rajendra Singh, it does not mean that he has committed any offence intentionally. He was detained under Police-custody and he had no other remedy except to obey the order of the Police Officer. I do not think that Prem Chand is responsible for this act. So actually no case is made out against Prem Chand also. The learned CJM has committed error in appreciating the evidence or I should say that he without reading the statements of the witnesses passed the impugned order. This order cannot be sustained.
5. As a result, the petition is accepted. The order of taking cognizance against Mansingh, Bharat Singh and Prem Chand dated 5-6-1987 is set aside and the proceedings against these petitioners are quashed.
