JUDGMENT
R.S. Chauhan, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged the Order dated 5.3.2003 whereby the Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Todabhim had declined to take cognizance against the accused respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for the offences under Section 147, 341, 323, 354, 504, 427, 456 and 149 IPC. The petitioner has also challenged the Order dated 3.7.04 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Hindaun City, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the former order.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Co- ordinator of Balaji Seva Samiti, Muradabad. The Samiti organizes “bhajan” “kirtan” and “ratri jagran” at several holy places. On 5.8.2000, the petitioner and members of the Samiti had come to Ghata Mehandipur Balaji and were staying at Gogadhan Dharmshala. While the petitioner was busy in conducting “bhajan” and “kirtan” at Saharan Dharmshala, at about 2.00 a.m., some of the girls of the Samiti rushed to the petitioner and informed her that D.P. Singh, Daulat Singh and three other persons in police uniform have entered the Gogadhan Dharmshala. They are throwing the belongings of the petitioner and of the Samiti members out of Dharmshala. They further alleged that these persons are misbehaving with the ladies who are staying at the Dharmshala. Consequently, the petitioner rushed to the Dharmshala and enquired about the misbehaviour and about the offences committed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and by his companions. Allegedly the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 not only misbehaved with the petitioner, but also declared that the Dharmshala belongs to them. Therefore, she and the Samiti members should vacate the Dharmshala immediately. When the petitioner and her companions refused to vacate the Dharmshala, at the dead of the night, allegedly they were thereatened at gun point. Frightened by this incident, the next day, the petitioner went and met the Superintendent of Police, Karauli and submitted a report to him. Since some of the persons against whom allegations were made were police personnel themselves, the police submitted a negative final report before the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Judicial Magistrate. Subsequently, the petitioner’s statement was recorded under Section 200 and the statement of the witnesses, Shivshanker, Shyam Singh and Mansingh were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Surprisingly, vide order dated 5.3.03 while the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against respondents Nos. 2 and 3, he did not take any cognizance against Aram Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Hanuman Singh, the three persons in police uniforms. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the Order dated 5.3.03, she filed a revision petition. However, vide Order dated 3.7.04, the Addl. Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition and upheld the order dated 5.3.03. Hence this petition before us.
3. Mr. Anurag sharma, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has argued that a bare perusal of the statement of the petitioner, and of her witnesses, would clearly reveal that there is sufficient evidence for taking cognizance against Aram Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Hanuman Singh. According to him, if there is a prima facie case made out against the alleged offenders, then the Court is duty bound to take cognizance against them and to issue the process. However, in the instant case since Aram Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Hanuman Singh are policemen, cognizance has not been taken against them.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Jagdish Lamba, the learned P.P. for the State, has argued that there was no material in the statements of the witnesses which could create a prima facie case against the alleged offenders. Therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly exercised his discretion in not taking cognizance against them.
5. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and have perused the impugned Orders as well as considered the statements of the petitioner and her witnesses which have been submitted before us.
6. The primary duty of a Court is to try and punish those who are alleged offenders and who have committed the offence. This duty becomes more onerous when the alleged offenders are those who are supposed to uphold the law. Policemen, undoubtedly, are the upholders of the law. In case there are allegations of misconduct or of their having committed an offence, a serious view should be taken by the Court. In case such persons are let off, the omission on the part of the Court undermines the faith of the people in the judiciary. In a democracy, the faith of the people is paramount. In case the faith of the people is shaken, the national ediface totters to its fall.
7. A bare perusal of the petitioner’s statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. clearly reveals that she has stated that Aram Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Hanuman Singh jumped over the wall of the Dharmshala and entered the Dharmshala. Once inside, they not only misbehaved with the girls, but also threw away their belongings to which the girls protested. These persons also proclaimed that the Dharmshala belonged to them. When the guests protested, these culprits assaulted Nimesh, Shivshanker and Jitender. Similarly Shivshanker, clearly states that Aram Singh hit him on his knees with the butt of his gun. Likewise, Shyam Singh, who was the Manager of the Dharmshala and who is a local person, named Aram Singh, Hanuman Singh and Bhanwar Singh in his statement. He has further stated that D.P. Singh and Daulat Singh alongwith these three persons entered the Dharmshala, misbehaved with the girls and assaulted them. Similarly, Mansingh has corroborated the statements of the above named witnesses. These statements are further corroborated by the injury reports of these witnesses. Obviously, sufficient prima facie case exists against these persons for the aforementioned offences.
8. A bare perusal of the order dated 5.3.03 clearly reveals that while the learned Judicial Magistrate has reproduced the petitioner’s statement, he has not given a single reason for not taking cognizance against Aram Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Hanuman Singh. Therefore, while he has accepted the petitioner’s statement qua D.P. Singh and Daulat Singh, he has not believed the statement qua the other three persons named above. Merely because these three persons happened to be policemen is no reason for not taking cognizance against them. As stated above, in case the policemen break the law, they should be dealt with sternly. But in the instant case they have been dealt with softly and let off.
9. While upholding the order dated 5.3.03, the logic given by the Addl. Sessions Judge is certainly unique. According to the learned Judge, the statement of the witnesses cannot be believed because in the FIR lodged by the petitioner, it was merely stated that D.P. Singh and Daulat Singh had come with three other persons but their names were not revealed in the FIR. However, in the statement their names have been revealed. Moreover, according to him the witnesses have only sustained one injury each. According to the learned Judge, in case the police were to assault they would not inflict just one injury each. There is no presumption of law that police persons mercylessly assault the people. Therefore, it defies logic that the three alleged offenders who are policemen have not been proceeded against only because witnesses have received single injury each
10. It is trite to state that at the time of taking cognizance the learned Judicial Magistrate is not required to sift the evidence and to Judge the varacity of the statements. If, prima Facie, case Is made out about the commission of an offence, then cognizance should be taken. Therefore, both the Impugned orders dated 5.3.03 and 3.7,04 are clearly perverse. Such orders would certainly cause a grave injustice to the petitioner and her companions who have suffered at the hands of the policemen.
11. In the result the orders a dated 5.3.03 and 3.7.04 are quashed and set aside. The learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to reconsider the evidence on record. If a prima facie case is made out for the aforementioned offences against Aram Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Hanuman Singh, then he should pass the necessary orders in accordance with law. With these observations, this petition is hereby allowed.