Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1685 (BOM)

Appasaheb v. Sunil

2018-07-12

K.L.WADANE

body2018
JUDGMENT : K.L. Wadane, J. 1. The respondent herein filed a private complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shrirampur, against the applicants/original accused No. 1 to 6 for offences punishable under section 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The allegations against the applicants are that on 08.07.2017 at about 9 a.m. all the accused persons entered into the land of the complainant bearing gat No. 228. Accused No. 1 caught hold the complainant, accused No. 3 assaulted him with fist and kick blows and accused No. 2, 4 and 6 also assaulted him with fist and kick blows and they abused to the complainant. 3. After filing of the complaint, learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shrirampur, taken cognizance of the offences punishable under section 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and process has been issued. Learned counsel for the applicants invited my attention to the provisions of section 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and he further points out that all the offences are non-cognizable, bailable and triable by Magistrate. 4. Looking to the provisions of section 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, offence punishable under section 323 is punishable for imprisonment for one year or a fine of Rs. 1000/- or both, classified as noncognizable, bailable and triable by Magistrate. Offence punishable under section 504 of I.P.C. is punishable up to two years, classified as noncognizable, bailable and triable by Magistrate and same is the situation for the offence for criminal intimidation, punishable under section 506 of I.P.C. 5. In view of above, the Magistrate is not empowered to take cognizance since all the offences levelled against the applicants are non-cognizable. Therefore, it appears that the Magistrate has committed mistake while taking cognizance, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 1, Shrirampur, is patently illegal. 6. In view of the above, impugned order is set aside. The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B'. 7. Criminal Application is disposed of.