Court No. - 18 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 4370 of 2010 Petitioner :- Arshad Hussain S/O Late Bahadur Husain Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Anr. Petitioner Counsel :- Mohd. Arif Salonvi Respondent Counsel :- G.A. Hon'ble S.N.H. Zaidi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the
State.
Notice to opposite party no.2 is dispensed with.
By menas of this writ petition, order dated 6.4.2010 passed by the
Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 22/2010 and order dated
4.12.2009 passed by the Second Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No.12, Rae Bareli in Complaint Case No. 985
of 2009 have been challenged.
A resume of the necessary facts are that the petitioner has
instituted a complaint case No. 985 of 2009 under sections
323,406 and 506 IPC against opposite party no.2, who is Assistant
Regional Transport Officer (Enforcement) Rae Bareli, with the
allegations that he is running a transport business as Bahadur Bus
Service and his bus was booked for carrying a marriage party and
on the date of incident when the bus was going to lift the marriage
party, it was got stopped by opposite party no.2 and the driver was
dragged out of the bus and abused by him and to get the bus
released his Manager gave him Rs. 14,339/- towards fine, but he
did not issue any receipt and asked to take the receipt and release
order from the office but it were not never given to him and
amount of fine has to be deposited again to get the bus released.
The complainant examined himself and his driver Mohd. Rafi and
Manager Mumtaz Ahmad in support of his complaint under
sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate after
considering the record, dismissed the complaint under section 203
Cr.P.C. by the impugned order dated 4.12.2009 with the
observation that neither any injury report nor receipt of payment
of money has been filed and there was no entrustment of property
with the accused and it was also not made out from the statements
that the money was dishonestly misappropriated or converted by
the accused to his own us. The said order was challenged by the
petitioner in Criminal Revision No.22 of 2010 before the Sessions
Judge but the learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, also
dismissed the revision with impugned order dated 4.12.2009.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the main
allegation in the complaint against opposite party no.2 is that after
receiving the amount no receipt thereof was issued by him,
therefore, the ground of dismissal of complaint is unfounded.
Section 203 Cr.P.C. provides as under:-
“203. Dismissal of complaint- If, after considering the statements
on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the
result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202, the
Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for
proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case
he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing.”
A complaint thus can be dismissed if from the consideration of
the statements of the complainant and his witnesses, the
Magistrate is of the opinion that there exists no sufficient ground
for proceeding in the matter and the only requirement for him is
that he is to record reasons of dismissal in brief in his order.
It appears that the evidence produced by the complainant in
support of his complaint case after due consideration, was not
found sufficient for proceeding by the Magistrate. The
complainant had also not filed the copy of challan of the bus in
respect of which the alleged amount of fine was paid or the receipt
of subsequent payment of fine as alleged.
The lower revisional Court did not find any illegality or
jurisdictional error in the order of the Magistrate.
In view of the aforesaid and on perusal of the record and
considering the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered
view that there appears no illegality either in the impugned orders
of the lower revisional Court or of the Magistrate and this writ
petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.8.2010
Muk