ORDER
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed against the order passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Desuri on 5-9-1990 by which he took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 451 and 323, I.P.C. and directed issuance of bailable warrants against the petitioners.
3. A perusal of the original record shows that on 2-8-1989 Hasti Mal filed an application in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Desuri. In that application he submitted that the final report submitted by the police was not liable to be accepted that the accused persons had in fact given a beating and a medical certificate was submitted at the police station and a prima facie case is made out against the accused. Therefore, cognizance be taken against them.
4. It appears that on 24-5-1986 at 2 p.m. Hasti Mal submitted a typed report before the Station House Officer of Police Station, Desuri. In that report he alleged that on that day at 12.45 p.m. Parmanand, his wife, son of Chunni Lal Jat, Bhanwar Lal, Chhota Lal, Rajendra, Chhota Lal and Mahavir went to his house in vehicle No. RNM 329. They were armed with lathis and stones and went to the house of the first informant with the object of attacking him; they entered the house of the first informant and gave beating to his daughter Aichuki and nephew Champalal Sharma and a golden chain was also snatched from his daughter and this incident was witnessed by Tarachand Mathur, Basanti Lal Sharma, Smt. Narbada and some other persons including the driver of the vehicle. On the basis of the report submitted by Hasti Mai, the police registered a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 379 and 452, I.P.C. and commenced the investigation.
5. During the investigation, the police examined Hastimal, Smt. Shanti, Aichuki, Champa Lal, Tarachand, Basant Lal and Dilip, the place of occurrence was inspected by the police officer and prepared the site-plan and also prepared an inspection note. The medico-legal reports of the injuries of Aichuki and Champalal were also collected by him. Champalal was also examined. After investigation the police submitted a final report in which it was stated that on the date of occurrence Parmanand was returning to his house in a car and at that time Murari and Dinesh gave a beating to Parmanand and the remaining part of the story was false.
6. Hastimal as pointed out earlier filed a protest petition on 2-8-1989 asserting that the report made by him was correct and that Aichuki and Champalal had been beaten by the persons named by him as accused. On submission of this protest petition the learned Magistrate examined Hastimal P.W. 1 and Champalal P.W. 2 in support of the report made by Hastimal. So far as the statement of Hastimal P.W. 1 is concerned, he clearly stated that at the time of the alleged incident he was not present at the house, as he had gone to the bus stand to see off the guests and he reached his house on hearing about the incident. Champalal who is one of the injured persons deposed on oath that Parmanand, Parmanand’s wife, Bhika and a driver whose name he did not know went to the house of Hastimal on 24-5-1986, they were armed with lathis and stones and after entering into the house Parmanand and his wife threw stones which struck Aichtiki daughter of Hastimal and she received injuries. Champalal had added that when he tried to intervene Parmanand gave a stick blow on his right arm. Thus, two injuries are alleged to have been caused, by stones to Aichuki and other by a stick to Champalal himself. The learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 451 and 323, I.P.C. against, Parmanand, Parmanand’s wife Kunta and Bhika son of Chunni Lal Jat. So far as Parmanand’s wife is concerned, Champa Lal had clearly stated that she caused injury to Aichuki with a stone thrown by her. So far as Parmanand is concerned, Champalal had clearly stated that when he intervened Parmanand hit with a stick at his fore-arm. No injury has been attributed to Bhika but in the facts and circumstances of the case, Bhika was present at the spot and it may be inferred that all the three petitioners had common intention to cause injuries to Aichuki and Champalal. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate has committed any illegality in taking cognizance of the offence committed by the petitioners.
7. Consequently, this petition has ho force, if deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected. The stay order dated 8-3-1991 is vacated. 8. A copy of this order along with the record be sent to the learned lower Court within a fortnight from today.