4. In the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners, wife of petitioner no.2 instituted a civil suit( Annexure No.3) on 10.5.2012, which has been placed on record as Annexure No.3 entitled title 'Vimla Devi Vs. Dukhi. On service of notice on the respondent, an application was made by the respondent for lodging a F.I.R. against the petitioners. The Magistrate has treated the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as complaint and recorded evidence of the complainant side and has issued summoning orders.
5. Argument of the petitioners' side is that in prosecution of malafide intention and in counter blast to the civil proceedings, initiated from the petitioners' side, in total abuse of process of the court and process of the law, application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has been filed. If the proceedings are allowed to continue, substantial injustice would be caused.
6. Learned counsel has further pointed out that allegations made in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are totally vague and do not spell out commission of any offence per se. The application does not mention any witness to the incident. In the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., two witnesses have been mentioned namely Gulab Singh and Badku Singh. Under Section 202 Cr.P.C., however, two different witnesses namely Virendra Bahadur Singh and Ram Tej have been examined. This clearly shows that the proceedings initiated are only to force the petitioners side not to pursue the civil suit ( Annexure No.3).
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record.
8. In the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.(Annexure No.4), it has been said that on 30.7.2012 at about 5.00 p.m., all the accused with an intention to kill and to evict them from the village, came to the house of the petitioners. The complainant was abused in the name of his caste. It has been further said that vacate the house or you will be killed and possession of the house would be taken. It has been specifically pleaded in the application placed on record ( Annexure No.4) that beatings were given to the complainant with lathis, danda, kicks and fists blows. On hearing commotion, villagers came there. A number of injuries were received by the complainant. Complainant approached Station House Officer, Wazirganj, however, F.I.R. was not registered. Complainant was not subjected to medical examination. Under the above given circumstances, the complainant on his own got himself examined medically in District hospital at Gonda on 31.7.2012 and gave information of the incident to the Superintendent of Police, Gonda and the District Magistrate through registered post, however, no action has been taken, hence application dated 8.8.2012 was made.
9. In the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., allegations in the name of caste has not been mentioned. There is no reference to the fact that the complainant was medically examined in the hospital. There is no mention of the fact that the complainant had approached the police authorities. Two witnesses namely Gulab Singh and Badku Singh have been named. Witnesses examined by the complainant are Virendra Bahadur Singh and Ram Tej whose statements also have been placed on record, collectively as Annexure No.5. The statements of the said witnesses are on the same lines as the statement of the complainant.
10. Having considered all the relevant documents, this Court has taken note of the fact that although the complainant mentioned medical examination of the injuries sustained by him, however, no medical evidence has been placed on record of the court of Magistrate, nor the doctor has been mentioned/produced as a witness.
11. This Court has further taken note of the fact that the complainant is over 70 years of age and in this case as many as five persons allegedly caused injuries. The injuries, if sustained, would have been clearly evident in the medical report. The medical report was a necessary and relevant document to be placed on record to establish the offences, which having not been done, suspicion on the story set up by the complainant is raised.
12. This Court has also take note of the fact that the allegations have been made under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities )Act,1989 in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. No such allegation, however, was made either by the complainant in his statement nor by the two witnesses namely Virendra Bahadur Singh or Ram Tej. The contradictory stand taken in the application under Section 153(3) Cr.P.C. viz-a-viz the statement of the complainant/witnesses is serious in nature, and goes to the root of the case.
13. This Court has further taken into account the fact that the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. does not make reference to any witness by name. Statement of the complainant recorded in Court under Section 200 Cr.P.C., however, refers to two witnesses namely Gulab Singh and Badku Singh. The said witnesses, however, have not been examined to prove the alleged facts. When the above noted contradictions are considered in the backdrop of civil dispute initiated by petitioners' side earlier in time, it becomes evident that the respondent complainant has filed application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. only in counter blast to the civil litigation and with mala fide intention to force the petitioners not to pursue their civil rights.
14. In the considered opinion of this court, continuance of proceedings in such backdrop of facts, would result in abuse of process of the court and process of the law. This court cannot allow a litigant to misuse criminal proceedings for personal aims, only so as to harass an opponent who happens to have initiated civil proceedings.
15. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Proceedings of Complaint Case 369 of 2012 under Sections 323, 452, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Wazirganj, District Gonda (Dukhi Vs. Narendra Pratap Singh and others ), are quashed.
Order Date :- 9.7.2014 Shukla