JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. This is an application under [SECTION] of the [ACT], for quashing the order, dated 23-9-1983 passed in [CASE NUMBER], by which the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat took cognizance of the offence under [SECTION] of the [ACT] against the petitioner and another.
2. The facts giving rise to this application may be summarised in this way. A complaint was filed by opposite party No. 2-[ENTITY] against the petitioner and another for having committed an offence under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT], stating inter alia, that on 22-2-1983 at about 2.15 p. m. the opposite party No. 2 who was Vice President of the Labour Union, Gomia, was called by the petitioner and another officer, and as soon as he entered in their office room, be was abused by them. On hearing this, four witnesses also came and asked about the cause of abusing, when the petitioner and his associates assaulted one [ENTITY] with fists and slaps and pushed him out of the door way. It is also said that the other colleagues of the petitioner, who had a paper-cutting knife, inflicted a blow on the opposite party (complainant), but as he resisted it by his hand, he sustained some injuries on his finger.
3. The matter was reported to the police, but no action was taken, whereupon, a regular complaint was filed. The learned Magistrate after examining the complaint-opposite party and his witnesses, passed the impugned order after cancelling the jurisdiction of the local Gram Kutchery on the ground that the Sarpanch Atukhiya were employee of the company. Against that, the present application has been filed.
4. Mr. [ENTITY], learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised three points, namely, (a) that on the facts and circumstances of the case no case under [SECTION] of the [ACT] has been made out against the petitioner ; (b) the present complaint was a counter blast to the case filed earlier against the petitioner and the aforesaid [ENTITY] and other in order to harass and humiliate them, which was completely over-looked by the learned Magistrate and in a mechanical way without applying his judicial mind, he passed the order impugned ; and (c) that the order cancelling the jurisdiction of the Gram Kutchery is also bad in law. as the learned Magistrate was not competent to do so.
5. It is not in controversy that in those days the opposite party No. 2 was holding an executive post in the Union and, therefore, it can safely be presumed that he had a large number of followers on account of his high position in the Union. It is also not in controversy that on the date of the alleged occurrence, a case was filed against the opposite party and others for having assaulted one of the officers of the company, who is a co-accused in this case, and the police arrested the offenders and after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against them. The First Information Report of that case is Annexure 3 to this application.
6. It has now to be seen whether any prima facie case in relation to the allegations contained in the present complaint had been made out. It is alleged that the opposite party No. 2 was called by. the petitioner and his colleague and as soon as he entered in the room, they started abusing him. it may be pointed out that allegation of abuse was not found to be correct as no cognizance in respect of that item was taken. Then again, the opposite party No. 2 is said to have been assaulted by a sharp cutting weapon by one of the colleagues of the petitioner. The doctor's report, which is Annexure 2 to this application, does only show that a simple injury on the left ring finger caused by a hard blunt substance was found. Therefore, it can be assumed that the story set out in the petition of complaint that the opposite party received injury by a sharp cutting weapon, is in direct conflict with the medical report. This report appears to have been issued six hours after the alleged incident. This abnormal delay has not been explained.
7. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the position occupied by the opposite party No. 2 it was highly improbable and also absurd to think or suppose that during the working hours he would be called by two officers for the purpose of abusing and assaulting him. It has been further submitted that the time of occurrence in the petition of complaint has been purposely mentioned to be 2.15 p. m. in order to wriggle out of the case filed against the opposite party No. 2 and others by the petitioner's side wherein there is a specific allegation that the incident had taken place at 2.40 p. m. It has also been said that the absurdity of the cause will also be apparent from the fact that nothing could be produced to show that the police was informed, although a case was sought to be made out by O. P. No. 2 that a written report was given to the police. The contentions raised cannot be lightly brushed aside.
8. It has been next contended that on account of certain incident, on the call of the opposite party No. 2 there was a general strike in the company and in that back-ground, it is highly improbable to think or suppose that the petitioner and his colleague would dare to call the opposite party No. 2 and assault him in the manner as has been set up in the petition of complaint
9. That apart, there appears no motive in assaulting one of the members of the opposite party No. 2 in the office room against whom there was no apparent grievance.
10. As indicated, on the date of the alleged occurrence, a regular case was instituted against the opposite party No. 2 and others by one of the accused in the case before the police. In that situation, the submission raised that two days after a complaint was filed as a counter blast to that case has much substance on the facts and circumstances. The Supreme Court in a decision reported in [PRECEDENT] has laid down the categories of cases, where inherent jurisdiction can and should be exercised for quashing the proceedings, and observed as under:
There may be cases where it may be possible for the High Court to take the view that the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused person may amount to the abuse of the process of the Court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice. If the criminal proceeding in question is in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by an accused person and it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceeding on that ground. Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instances, furnish cases under this category. Cases may also arise where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged, in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises ; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the First Information Report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In such cases it would be legitimate for the High Court to hold that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the process of the Criminal Court to be issued against the accused person A third category of cases in which the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be successfully invoked may also arise. In cases falling under this category the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In dealing with this class of cases, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may not support the accusation in question
In an another decision reported in the case of [PRECEDENT]. it has been observed as follows:
Whether an offence has been disclosed or not must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. In considering whether an offence into which an investigation is made or to be made is disclosed or not, the court has mainly to take into consideration the complaint or the F. I. R. and the court may in appropriate cases take into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. On a consideration of all the relevant materials, the court has to come to the conclusion whether an offence is disclosed or not. If on a consideration of the relevant materials, the court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed, the court will normally not interfere with the investigation into the offence and will generally make the investigation into the offence to be completed for collecting materials for proving the offence. If on the other hand, the court on a consideration of the relevant material is satisfied that no offence is disclosed, it will be the duty of the Court to interfere with any investigation and to stop the same to prevent any kind of uncalled for and unnecessary harassment to an individual.
11. In the instant case, as indicated, various facts and circumstances have been placed and on an examination of the same, I find that the allegations do not constitute an offence and, therefore, this case appears to be the counter-blast to the case filed by the petitioner's side, would be sheer abuse of the process of the Court if the case against accused persons is allowed to continue. In the circumstances, I am of the view that this is a fit case in which the cognizance of the offence taken by the learned Magistrate against the petitioner and another is fit to be quashed. It is thus, needless to take up the other point raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding cancellation of jurisdiction of the Gram Kutchery while taking cognizance of the offence by the Magistrate. It may, however, be pointed out that, in view of the amended provisions of the [ACT], a Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate is competent to cancel the jurisdiction of the Gram Kutchery, if such occasion arises.
12. The result is, that this application is allowed and the impugned order dated the 23rd of September, 1983 passed in [CASE NUMBER] is set aside. I accordingly, quash the entire proceeding, and order that no further proceeding in the [CASE NUMBER] is to be carried on or continued.