| Case Name : | Ajaib Singh & Anr. Vs. Joginder Singh & Anr. |
| Equivalent Citation : | (1969)1 SCR 145; AIR 1968 SC 1422 |
| Date of Judgement : | 30 April 1968 |
| Court : | Supreme Court of India |
| Case No. : | Criminal Appeal no. 157 of 1965 |
| Case type : | Criminal Appeal |
| Petitioner : | Ajaib Singh |
| Respondent : | Joginder Singh |
| Bench : | S.M.Sikri , V.Ramaswami |
| Referred : | Sec. 193,195,211 and 120(B) of I.P.C. ,Criminal miscellaneous petition no.8 of 1964. |
FACTS OF THE CASE :
Ajaib Singh, the appellant had investigated the case being Sub-Inspector in which Bhagvant Rai and Chota Ram were tried under 325 I.P.C under the court of Shri Harish Chandra Gaur, Magistrate. The magistrate acquitted both accused and found that Bhagvant Rai was not even present on the day of occurrence.
The, Joginder Singh, Magistrate 1st class at Patiala filed a complaint against 6 persons including appellant (Ajaib Singh) under sec. 193, 195, 211 and 120 (B) of I.P.C.on the application of Bhagvant Rai. The magistrate ordered the discharge of these accused, dated June 1, 1959, holding that the complaint was barred by sub-sec.(6) of Cr.P.C. as it hadn’t been filed directly by Shri Harish Chandra Gaur who disposed of the earlier case acquitting Bhagvant Rai.
Revision was filed before the additional session judge who accepted the prayer of Kirpal Singh and recommended it to the High Court. Appellants in the meantime put criminal miscellaneous petition no.8 of 1964. Justice Capoor accepted the recommendation but directed that the criminal miscellaneous petition be disposed before another bench. So, it was placed before Justice Sharma and it was held that the respondent must proceed according to law.
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANTS :
Appellants obtained special leave and their learned counsel contends that the complaint could only be filed by the Magistrate who disposed of the case and before whom the whole proceeding took place as according to s. 195(1) of Cr.P.C. a complaint in respect of s. 193,195 and 211 I.P.C. can be made in that court only where proceedings of the offences arose and took place.
They contended that the s. 42 of the police act doesn’t apply to prosecutions under the I.P.C. and prosecution is time barred under the section having a prescribed period of three months.
Next, they contended that the complaint only discloses two offences under sec. 193 and 195 of I.P.C. and urged that this complaint had been filed because of a personal feud and it doesn’t include in the jurisdiction that complainant should be allowed to go along with the complaint.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT :
Being falsely implicated, they filed against appellants contending that they committed an offence under s. 193, 195, 211 and 120B I.P.C. They also prayed that the criminal proceedings pending against Kirpal Singh might be quashed in the court of Magistrate 1st class , Patiala.
RATIO DECIDENDI :
The Judgment of the court was delivered by justice Sikri by taking in consideration of the judgment passed earlier by the Magistrate of High Court and additional session judge directing the final decision related to all the appeals, revisions and complaints filed.
JUDGMENT :
At first, an additional session judge upheld the view of the judgment that was earlier decided.
But in the revision of the High Court, that decision got sided by the Magistrate and directed that respondent would be prosecuted according to law as the making of complaint against respondent was not appealed , so the decision is final in respect to them.
After the appeal was filed, It was held by the Court that the appeal made must be dismissed as there was no force in the contentions of the appellants. Due to the substitution of a section under s. 559 by the Cr.P.C. amendment act of 1923, a successor in office of a Magistrate can file a complaint under s. 476 Cr.P.C. for an offence under s. 195 I.P.C.
Other contentions were also found irrelevant as s.42 of police act doesn’t apply to prosecutions under I.P.C. and in this particular case, prosecution was for offence under s. 212 of I.P.C. which would be considered as an offence under different act for which higher punishment is prescribed. The point in which it was urged that the whole complaint was based on personal flued was also not considered in the court and appeal was rejected.
CONCLUSION :
This case law defines who can file a case as a successor before Magistrate in the Court and describe the process and time period of how it’s needed to be filed in order to not get the complaint rejected. It also imparts how necessary it’s for judges to interpret the case deeply in order to get rational justice. This case talks about s.42 of police act is different provision as compared to I.P.C. and has different punishment if the offence comes under different provision of I.P.C. and prosecution is based on it.
written by Chanchal Garg intern under legal vidhiya
