Rajasthan High CourtUpendra Singh Solanki vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 16 January, 1997Equivalent citations: 1997CRILJ1850ORDER
 

Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for non-petitioner No. 1. Now appeared on behalf of non-Petitioners Nos. 2 to 5.2.    This petition underSection 482of the Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the order dated 9-5-1994 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bilara in Cr. Original CaseNo. 68 of 1994, State v. Paras Ram and Ors.. Bythe aforesaid order the learned Judicial Magistrate discharged the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 of the offences punishable underSections 147,148,332,353,427,365/149of the Indian Penal Code and directed that charges be framed against the accused persons underSections 323and342of the Indian Penal Code.3.   A revision petition was filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate, in the Court of District and Sessions Judge Jodhpur. That revision petition was dismissed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur vide order dated 17-1 1-1994.4.  The facts of the case may be summarised as under. In January 1994, the petitioners was posted as Assistant Engineer P.H.E.D. at Bilara. According to the First Information Report submitted by the petitioner at Police Station, Bilara, on 14-1-1994, at about 9.00 p.m., the petitioner went to a S.T.D. booth with a view to talk with the Executive Engineer, Jodhpur. After talking with Executive Engineer Jodhpur on telephone, the petitioner started talking with Assistant Engineer Pipad city on telephone. When the petitioner was talking with Asst. Engineer on telephone, Paras Ram Vishnoi, Shyam Lal Lohar, and some other persons, who were 6-7 in number entered the S.T.D. booth and asked the petitioner why he had made a complaint against them. Those persons furtheur said that they would kill the petitioner. The petitioner told them that he had not made any complaint against them. Those persons then closed the door of the S.T.D. booth and inflicted injuries to the petitioner with kicks and fists. The owner of the S.T.D. booth and one other person intervened. When the petitioner came out of the S.T.D. booth he was again beaten by the assailants. The spectacles of the petitioner were also damaged. The petitioner was asked not to lodge the report but when the petitioner told the assailants that he-would lodge the report, he was forcibly lifted and was placed in an open jeep. The petitioner was thus kept in confinement and was released at the instance of a person known as Kamediaji.5.  On the basis of the First Information Report submitted by the petitioner, a Criminal Case underSections 147,149,342,323and365of the Indian Penal Code was registered at the Police Station Bilara. After investigation a report underSection 175(2), Criminal Procedure Code was submitted in this Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bilara. After hearing the arguments the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 9-5-1994. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 17-11-1994. Feeling aggrieved by the orders of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate and the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, the petitioner has filed this petition underSection 482of the Criminal Procedure Code.6.   After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and considering the orders passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate and the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, I am not inclined to accept this petition. Abduction of any person is per se not an offence. Abduction is punishable only when conditionslaid down inrelevant sections are satisfied. In this case no offence underSection 365, Indian Penal Code is made out because there is no allegation that the accused intended to keep the petitioner in secret, Confinement. The incident was unpremeditated and therefore the Courts below were justified in coming to the conclusion that offences underSection 147and148Indian Penal Code were not made out. Alleged assault was neither with a view to prevent the petitioner from performing his applied official duty nor it was the result of any official act done by the petitioner. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case this petition deserves to be dismissed and is hearby dismissed. The record of the lower Court shall be returned with a copy of this order. The learned Judicial Magistrate shall dispose of the case according to law.