JUDGMENT 1. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 273/79, S.B. Criminal Revision No. 88,'79 and S.B. Criminal Revision No. 243/79 filed by Rantnarain petitioner arise out of one and the same incident which was alleged to have taken place at Churu Police Station Kotwali during the night between 8th and 9th February, 1975 and in which Vimalkumar Balmukand and Sheopujan complainants were alleged to have been wrongfully confined, abused and beaten with requisite intention or knowledge to kill and coerce to make confession by other co-accused at the instance of the petitioner. Hence these revision petitions are decided together by this one judgment as common questions of law and facts do arise in them. 2. The incident that led to the prosecution of the petitioner upon complaints by Vimal Kumar, Balmukand and Sheopujan in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Churu, may be briefly stated as follows:- 3. On 8-2-75 the then Chief Minister Shri Harideo Joshi visited Churu on official tour. Upon his arrival there was tension which led to strike in the market. The Officer incharge of Administration felt annoyed on that score and out of a revengeful spirit arrested some persons including the three complaints, namely, Vimal Kumar, Balmukand and Sheopujan in the night between 8th 9th February, 1975. After their arrest the co-accused, mentioned in each complaint, abused and beat the complainants with intent to kill them and coerced them to make false confessions at the instance of the petitioner and one Satyaprakash the then Deputy Superintendent of Police Churu. The complainant however, refused to make any confession. Hence they were again beaten and e% ritually challaned in the court of Judicial Magistrate Churu under sections 307, 147, 149 353, 332, 427, 341 and 336 I.P.C. As a result of the beating administered to the three complainants by the co-accused at the instance of Ramnarain petitioner and Satyaprakash Dy. S P. The three petitioners sustained some injuries on their bodies which were noticed on their person upon medical examination by Drs. P.P. Gupta, S.N.Nabula and K.S. Mehta on 13-2-75. The complainants namely Vimalkumar, Balmukand and Sheopujan therefore filed three separate complaints (one by each) against the petitioner and other co-accused in the court of the Judicial Magistrate Churu under sections 307, 330, 504, 342 read with S. 34 and S 109 I.P.C. 4. P.P. Gupta, S.N.Nabula and K.S. Mehta on 13-2-75. The complainants namely Vimalkumar, Balmukand and Sheopujan therefore filed three separate complaints (one by each) against the petitioner and other co-accused in the court of the Judicial Magistrate Churu under sections 307, 330, 504, 342 read with S. 34 and S 109 I.P.C. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate examined each complainant on oath corded his statement and the statements of his witnesses and upon considering those statements including that of the complainants, came to a conclusion that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner and other co-accused under sections 330, 323, 342, and 504 read with section 34 I.P.C. Accordingly he issued process in each complaint against the petitioner and the co-accused to (procure their a tendance in his Court. As against this order of issuing of process against the petitioner in each complaint, the petitioner has come up in revision to this Court. 5. I have carefully perused the record of each revision petition and heard Mr. M.M. Singhvi learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kewal Chand Samdaria learned counsel for Sheopujan and the Public Prosecutor in S.B. riminal Revision Petition No. 88/79. In S.B. Criminal revision petition No. 43/79 Balmukand non-petitioner No. 1 and in S.B. Criminal Revision No. 273/79 Shri Vimal Kumar non-petitioner No. 1 have not put in their appear ncc despite due service of notice on them. Hence in these two revision petitions heard Mr. M.M. Singhvi learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public prosecutor for the State. 6. Mr. Kewal Chand Samdaria learned counsel for Sheopujan non-petitioner No. 1 in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 88/79 raised a preliminary objection that the revision petition filed by the petitioner is barred by time cause it has been filed in this Court beyond 90 days since the date of order the Judicial Magistrate i.e. 1-9-78 and so it should be dismissed summarily n the point of limitation. 7. Mr. M.M. Singhvi learned counsel for the petitioner on the other and argued that the revision petition has been filed in time as the petitioner me to know about the order of the Judicial Magistrate for issuing process against him on 4th May, 1979, through a letter received by him from Shri Girish Chandra Dadhich Revenue Officer Municipal Board Fathepur to this effect. Upon receipt of the aforesaid letter the petitioner obtained the certified copy of the order of the Judicial Magistrate and filed the revision petitions without delay. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that he has filed applications for condonation of-delay in filing the revision petitions along with the affidavit of the petitioner in the two revision petitions Nos. 273/79 and 243/79. In the third revision petition his contention regarding objection of the limitation is the same. 8. I have considered the rival contentions mentioned above. In view of the authority of the Supreme Court (I) Raja Harish Chandra Rajsingh V. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer (A.I.R. 1961 SC 1500) , I have no hesitation in holding that limitation for filing revision petitions in this case shall run from the dated when it was known to the petitioner either actually or constructively that orders issuing process against him in criminal complaints have been passed by the Judicial Magistrate Churu. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner in the above mentioned two revision petitions it is clearly stated by him that he came to know about the orders issuing process against him on 4th May, 1979, through a letter received by him from Girish Chandra Dadhich Revenue Officer Municipal Board Fatehpur. There is no reason to disbelieve the affidavits of the petitioner on this point specially when no counter affidavit has been put in by the either side to controvert this fact. Hence in my opinion, the period of limitation for filing the rev. Petition shall commence in each case from the date of the knowledge of the petitioner about the order of the Judicial Magistrate. Upon calculation from that date, i.e. 4th May, 1979, on which date the petitioner came to know about the orders under revision passed by the Judicial Magistratc, the revision petitions are filed within 90 days. 9. On merits the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended before me that before issuing process against the petitioner the learned Judicial Magistrate did not apply his mind to the material on the record and passed the impugned orders in a routine manner without caring to find out whether any prima facie case was made out against the petitioner. It was further urged by Mr. It was further urged by Mr. M M. Singhvi that the order of the Judicial Magistrate issuing process is not a speaking order and does not contain grounds which were in his opinion sufficient for the issue of process in each case and so this Court has ample revisional powers to interfere with the proceedings and quash the same where issue of process is passed on insufficient materials. In support of his above contention Mr. M.M. Singhvi relied upon the following authorities:- (2) Rajendra Nath V. The Deputy Superintendent of police Purulia. (A.1.R. 1972 S C. 470) . (3) Shantilal V. State of Rajasthan. 1977 (Criminal Law Reporter (Raj.) Page 575 Mr. Kewalchand Samdaria appearing on behalf of Sheopujan in S.B. Criminal Revision No. 88/79 on the other hand argued that the facts alleged in the complaint and in the statements of the complainant and his witnesses show a sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner because the complainant and his witnesses clearly stated in their deposition that the petitioner asked the co-accused to beat the complainant in case he did not make a confession about his guilt. Mr. D.S. Shishodia the learned Public Prosecutor did not support the impugned orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate. 10. I have given my earnest consideration to the contentions mentioned above. At the out set I may say that the matter of issue of a process under S. 204 Cr. P.C. requires to be judicially determined. A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence is bound to issue process u;s 204 Cr.P.C. only if he is of the opinion that the facts alleged in the complaint and in the statements of the complainant and his witnesses disclose a sufficient ground for proceeding, but if there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding a process cannot issue. This Court is empowered in exercise of its revisional powers to interfere with the proceedings at any stage and quash the same where neither the complaint nor the statement of the complainant and his witnesses disclose a prima facie case against the accused or where issue of process has been ordered on insufficient materials. 11. This Court is empowered in exercise of its revisional powers to interfere with the proceedings at any stage and quash the same where neither the complaint nor the statement of the complainant and his witnesses disclose a prima facie case against the accused or where issue of process has been ordered on insufficient materials. 11. In the complaint filed by Bal Mukand, non-petitioner No. 1, in S.B. Criminal Revision No. 243 of 1979, the only allegation against Ram Narain, petitioner, is that he along with Satya Prakash asked Bal Mukand, Vimal Kumar and Sheopujan complainants to confess their guilt before the court in which they were produced on the next day. The complainant refused to make any confession. Thereupon, the petitioner and his companions Satya Prakash told Sanwar Mal, Head Constable, co-accused to teach them a lesson and to give them a beating till they were not prepared to confess their guilt and if any one of them die in the course of beating, they would come to his help. Bal Mukand's statement on oath was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 200 Cr.P.C. In his statement he gave a different version by stating that Ram Narain petitioner, caught hold of his hair and abused him along with Satya Prakash and then asked him to confess his guilt in the court on the next day. Bal Mukand further stated in his deposition that when he refused to confess the guilt, Ram Narain. petitioner, told Sanwar Mal, Head Constable, to teach him a lesson and to give him a beating till he agreed to make a confession and if he died in the course of beating then the petitioner promised Sanwar Mal to come to his help. The above version given by Bal Mukand does not find support from the statement of Ranveer Singh, P.W. 2, and Subhash PW 3, Shopujan, P.W. 5 on the other hand, narrated a different story by stating that Ram Narain petitioner, and Satya Prakash caught hold of his hair and pulled them. This fact was not stated by Bal Mukand in his deposition. On the other hand, Bal Mukand stated that the petitioner caught hold of his hair and abused him while Sheopujan did not say that the hairs of Bal Mukand were caught hold of and pulled by the petitioner. Vimal Kumar. This fact was not stated by Bal Mukand in his deposition. On the other hand, Bal Mukand stated that the petitioner caught hold of his hair and abused him while Sheopujan did not say that the hairs of Bal Mukand were caught hold of and pulled by the petitioner. Vimal Kumar. P.W. 4, did not say in his deposition that Ram Narain, petitioner had told Sanwal Ram, Head Constable, to treat the complainant in the way the police usually treats persons. He merely stated that the complainants were taken to the office of the Station House Officer where Ram Narain, petitioner, and the Deputy Superintendent Satya Prakash were sitting. Ram Narain and the Dy. S.P. Satya Prakash asked the complainants to confess their guilt in the court in which they would be produced on the next day. The complainants refused to make any confession. Thereupon, Sanwar Mal, Head Constable, asked his subordinates to extort confession. Vimal Kumar did not say that Ram Narain, petitioner directed the Police Head Constable and his subordinates to beat the complainants and to coerce them to make false confessions about their guilt. Atma Ram, P.W. 5, said nothing in his statement against Ram Narain, petitioner. On the other hand, he stated that Sheopujan and Bal Mukand disclosed to him at that time that they were being coerced by the police. Atma Ram did not say in his deposition that Bal Mukand and Sheopujan had disclosed to him that they were being beaten by the police at the instance of Ram Narain, petitioner. 12. Likewise in the complaint filed by Vimal Kumar, non-petitioner No. 1 in S.B. Criminal Revision No. 279 of 1979, the complainant in his statement on oath stated that upon his refusal to make a false confession of his guilt Ram Narain, petitioner, and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, asked Sanwar Mal to beat him till he made a confession and if he died in the course of beating not to worry in the least. Thereafter, Sanwar Mal co-accused took him to a quarter wherein he was abused and beaten by other co-accused. Subhash, P.W. 2, produced by Vimal Kumar complainant in the inquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. did not say any thing against the petitioner. Likewise, another witness Ranvir Singh did not implicate the petitioner in his statement under Section 202, Cr.P.C., did not say anything against the petitioner. Subhash, P.W. 2, produced by Vimal Kumar complainant in the inquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. did not say any thing against the petitioner. Likewise, another witness Ranvir Singh did not implicate the petitioner in his statement under Section 202, Cr.P.C., did not say anything against the petitioner. Likewise, another witness Ranvir Singh did not implicate the petitioner in his statement under Section 202, Cr.P.C. Sheopujan, PW 3, told a different story by stating that Ram Narain caught hold of his hair while Satya Prakash slapped and kicked him and Vimal Kumar complainant. Both Vimal Kumar, complainant, and his witness Bal Mukand did not say in their statements that hairs of Sheopujan were caught hold of by Ram Narain and a slap and a kick was given to him by Satya Prakash. Similarly in the complaint filed by Sheopujan, non-petitioner No. 1, in S B. Criminal Revision No. 88 of 1979, Subhash and Ranbir Singh did not say in their depositions that Ram Narain, Petitioner, had caught hold of the hair of Sheopujan and had asked Sanwar Mal co-accused to beat him till he confessed his guilt about throwing stones on the car of the then Chief Minister Shri Hardeo Joshi. Although Sheopujan, complainant, stated this fact in his statement under Section 202, Cr.P.C. Bal Mukand and Vimal Kumar also did not say that in their presence Ram Narain, petitioner had caught hold of the hairs of Sheopujan, complainant. Another witness Atma Ram merely stated that when he met Sheopujan, complainant, at the police station, he merely disclosed to him that he had been beaten by the police and that efforts should be made to set him at liberty. 13. In this manner, there are insufficient materials in each complaint on which no process could have been legally issued against the petitioner. Over the above all, the complainants kept quiet for more than 21/2 months after the incident and failed to make complaints promptly against the petitioner in the competent court of law, for reasons best known to them. 14. Hence, the revision petitions Nos. 273 of 1979, 88 of 1979 and 243 of 1979 filed by the petitioner Rain Narain are allowed and the impugned order dated September 1, 1978, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Churu, issuing process against Ram Narain, petitioner, under sections 451, 330, 323, 342 and 504, I.P.C. in S.B.Cr. 14. Hence, the revision petitions Nos. 273 of 1979, 88 of 1979 and 243 of 1979 filed by the petitioner Rain Narain are allowed and the impugned order dated September 1, 1978, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Churu, issuing process against Ram Narain, petitioner, under sections 451, 330, 323, 342 and 504, I.P.C. in S.B.Cr. Revision No. 273 of 1979, under sections 342, 330, 325 and 504 read with section 34, I.P.C. in S.B. Criminal Revision No. 88 of 1979 and under sections 330, 323, 342 and 504 read with section 34, I.P.C. in S.B. Criminal Revision No. 243 of 1979 are set aside. However, the criminal proceedings against co-accused shall continue. *******