1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 202 of 2002. Date of decision: 23.3.2009 Ramesh Chand …….Petitioners Vs. Mahender Singh and another ….. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge(Oral) The petitioner was complainant in case No.15/4 of 2002 and on dismissal of complaint on 16.4.2002 by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anni he has filed this revision. 2. The case, in brief, is that petitioner on 21.2.2002 presented complaint dated 20.2.2002 in person, to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Anni though the complaint was addressed to President Legal Aid Service Committee, Sub Division, Anni. In the complaint reference of various incidents from 27.9.2001 to 4.2.2002 have been given but in brief the allegations are that in the intervening night of 27th and 28th September 2001, some potato sacs of petitioner were stolen by respondent No.1. In addition, both respondents had criminally intimidated the petitioner. There is also Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 2 reference in the complaint that 18 sacs of potatoes were recovered by the police on 3.10.2001 at Khaneul. It has also been stated in the complaint that on 28.9.2002 the petitioner had submitted a written complaint to the police but no case was registered. On 29.9.2001 the petitioner submitted an application to the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anni under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and on that basis case was registered at Police Station, Anni on 5.10.2001. The learned Judicial Magistrate recorded preliminary evidence in the form of statements of CW-1 Ramesh Chand, CW-2 Bhimi Ram, CW-3 Bihari Lal and CW-4 Bahadur Singh and ultimately dismissed the complaint on 16.4.2002, hence this revision. 3. Heard and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate has erred in dismissing the complaint. On the basis of complaint and preliminary evidence, prima facie case is made out against the respondents for summoning them under sections 379, 506 IPC. The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order. 4. CW-1 Ramesh Chand complainant has stated that he had purchased 60 sacs of potatoes which were kept at Khaneul, those were stolen on 27.9.2001 and he came to know of the theft on 28th morning. The matter was reported to the police on 28th but police did not register any case. He filed a complaint in the Court and thereafter the police registered the case. Hira Lal had told that the theft was committed by Bahadur Singh. The police had recovered 18 sacs. Bahadur Singh and Mahender Singh had threatened him to do away his life. 3 5. CW-2 Bihmi Ram has stated that on 27.9.2001 he had loaded the vehicle with potatoes on the asking of Bahadur Singh. On the next day he came to know that those potatoes were of Ramesh Kumar. CW-3 Bihari Lal is the brother of complainant. He has stated that on 28.9.2001 he came to know that 60 sacs of Ramesh Kumar had been stolen. Bahadur Singh and Mahender Singh are dangerous persons. They had given threats to do away the life of Ramesh. CW-4 Bahadur Singh has stated that he does not know who had committed the theft. The learned Judicial Magistrate, on 16.4.2002 had ordered cancellation of FIR No.47/2001 dated 5.10.2001 under sections 379 IPC which was registered at the instance of Ramesh Chand alleging theft of 60 sacs of potatoes. 6. There is no allegation in the complaint that 60 sacs of potatoes were stolen by the respondents jointly or by Bahadur Singh individually. In his statement in the Court the complaint has stated that his 60 sacs of potatoes were stolen. The complainant has not examined any witness who had actually seen Bahadur Singh committing theft of 60 sacs of potatoes nor potato sacs were recovered from the accused. There is no allegation of conspiracy. CW-2 Bhimi Ram and CW-4 Bahadur Singh have stated nothing about the theft. The allegations with respect to criminal intimidation of respondents towards petitioner are vague. The learned Judicial Magistrate has already ordered cancellation of FIR No.47/2001 which was registered for alleged theft of 60 sacs of potatoes of complainant. The learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly appreciated the material on record in dismissing the complaint. 4 There is no perversity or error of jurisdiction in the impugned order. Resultantly, revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. ( Kuldip Singh) Judge March 23, 2009 (sks)