Chapman, J.@mdashThis is an application for the revision of an order made by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Beguserai u/s 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. It appears that for some three years there has been a dispute between one Jalo Singh and the applicant in regard to the title to certain lands in the Sub-Division of Beguserai. The dispute resulted in a series of criminal cases between the parties. Thereafter Jalo Singh executed a lease of the land in favour of Mr. Finch of the Teghra Factory in November 1915. Mr. Finch wrote to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mr. Hoernle. Mr. Hoernle thereupon gave what appears to me to be a most improper order, directing the Sub-Inspector of Police to give Mr. Finch assistance. The result of this was that when Mr. Finch went to the village an occurrence of some kind took place. Complaints were made on both sides. The complaint of the petitioner was a complaint to the effect that the Police had assisted the Factory in an attack upon the petitioner''s house. This latter complaint was improperly referred to the Police for report, and not unnaturally, the Police, who otherwise would have to admit its conduct, reported that the charge was false. For some reason the complaint made on behalf of the Factory was given preference and ended in a conviction upon the balance of probability, the Magistrate recording the fact that many of the witnesses had made absurd and incorrect statements. The petitioner endeavoured to prove his case in defence. The view the Magistrate took of the matter may be summarised by the sentence in his judgment to this effect: "It appears that neither side has given a fully correct version of the occurrence." The trial was held by the Deputy Magistrate; the Sub-Divisional Officer had in the meantime retained the petitioner''s complaint on his file and on the dismissal of the appeal, which was preferred from the Deputy Magistrate to the Sessions Judge, the Sub-Divisional Officer directed the prosecution of the petitioner u/s 476. In my opinion Section 476 does not contemplate that the proceeding should be based upon what has occurred in another Court. I am also of opinion that the proceeding is ill-conceived and that upon the merits the order should not have been passed. I take the opportunity of saying that, in my opinion, it is very undesirable to employ the Police in order to assist parties to enforce what they claim to be their right in a matter of civil dispute, until the matter has been decided by the Civil Court. The application granted and the order directing the prosecution is set aside. Let the proceedings against the petitioner be dropped.
