Sobhag Mal Jain, J.
1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.PC is directed against the order dated the 6th April, 1984, of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Rajgarh district Churu taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 147 and 323 IPC against the petitioners who are nine in number.
2. The case relates to the incident which took place on March 25, 1982 at about 10 A.M. in the market near a temple at Taranagar. A first information report of the occurrence was lodged by Trilok Chand, who is petitioner No. 2 in this case, at the Police Station, Taranagar on the same day at about 10.30 A.M. The story set up in this report briefly stated, was that while Trilok Chand was returning from the market and was near the temple, Nauranglal, non-petitioner No. 2 met him and caused injuries to him. He raised an alram which attracted several persons including Sarjoo Teli, Mohan Singh and Pramod Kumar, Trilok Chand was taken to the Police Station, Taranagar in a cart where he filed the aforesaid report on which FIR Case No. 19/82 was registered against Nauranglal under Section 147 and 323 IPC. After investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against Nauranglal in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh, where the said case is pending.
3. During the course of investigation of this case when the police went to the spot the Station House Officer found that Nauranglal was in a fighting mood and was making serious threats against Trilok Chand. Consequently, the police filed another charge-sheet against Nauranglal under Sections 107, 116(3) and 151 Cr. PC in the court of officiating Magistrate, Taranagar.
4. On or about April 23, 1982 Nauranglal filed a private complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh against all the nine petitioners for the offence under Section 323 and 147 IPC. According to this complaint it were the accused who caught hold of Nauranglal and beat him. The complaint was sent by the learned Magistrate to the Police Station Taranagar, for investigation. On August 26, 1982 the Station House Officer of the said Police Station gave a final report in the case stating that the complainant inspite of repeated requests had not come forward to give his statement, nor produced any evidence in support of his case. Even Chinoo, photographer, whose name was mentioned as a witness in the complaint had pleaded complete ignorance. According to the police the complaint filed by Nauranglal was false. However, t lie learned Magistrate on receipt of this report recorded the statements of Nauranglal and Ratansingh and took cognizance of the offence under Section 147 and 323 IPC against all the petitioners. Aggrieved by this the petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr. PC. By the order of this Court notices were issued to the respondents to show cause and further proceedings in the case before the learned Magistrate were also stayed. Respondent No. 2 Nauranglal did not appear inspite of notice and the petition was thereafter admitted on March 25, 1985.
5. I have heard Mr. S.K. Goyal for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. Goyal who has contended that the learned Magistrate has issued the process in a mechanical manner without even applying his mind to the police report made by the Station House Officer and this was clear case of harassment to the petitioners.
6. It appears that the present case has been filed by Trilok Chand against the petitioners as a counter-blast to the cases pending against him. The incident took place on March 25, 1982 and strangely the complaint was filed by Nauranglal as late as April 23, 1982. The delay has not been properly explained. In the complaint Nauranglal has stated that he went to the Police Station, Taranagar to make a report, but no such report appears in the police record. The Station House Officer in his final report has categorically stated that Nauranglal did not file any report of the occurrence at the Police Station. Further as per the complaint allegations Nauranglal was beaten by as many as nine petitioners but curiously he did not get himself examined by any medical practitioner. Two independent Police Officers, Bhanwarlal in FIR case No. 19/12 and Manphool Singh in the complaint case sent him for investigation by the learned Judicial Magistrate have concurrently found that the case of the complainant was false. Two challans were already pending against the complainant in the court of Judicial Magistrate (1) Criminal case arising out of FIR 19/82 under Section 323 and 147 IPC and (2) police case filed under Sections 107, 116(3) and 151 Cr.PC. In view of these circumstances. I am of the view that the present case is a counter-blast to the cases pending against the complainant. In the order dated the 6th April, 1984, the learned Magistrate has not made any reference to the record of investigation made by the police station by the order dated August 1, 1982 and the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate does not disclose application of mind. In the facts and circumstances that appear in the present case I do not see even a remotest possibility of the accused being convicted for the offence alleged against them. It is clear case of the abuse of the process of the court resulting in undue harassment of the petitioners. To prosecute innocent persons in a case where there appears not even a remote chance of conviction is nothing but abuse of the process of the court.
7. I, accordingly, allow this petition, set aside the order of the learned Magistrate dated the 6th April, 1984 in Criminal case No 139 of 1984 and direct that the complaint filed by Nauranglal against the petitioners will stand dismissed.