Setting aside a trial court order discharging two accused in an assault case, a sessions court said the FIR is not an “encyclopaedia” and that the veracity of statements made by the complainant will be tested during “cross examination”. Hearing the revision petition, Additional Sessions Judge Sanjay Bansal observed that the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) did not read the woman’s “statement” under Section CrPC 164 “carefully” before discharging the two accused.
The case relates to an “assault” over parking in 2013. One of the accused, Gaurav, had quarreled with the woman’s husband. He later pulled her inside a shop and tried to press her mouth. “In her statement, she alleged that the accused’s brother and father also beat up her husband…,” the court document said. In the chargesheet, the three accused were booked for assault, while Gaurav was also booked for outraging the modesty of a woman.
However, when the counsel submitted a plea before the MM court to discharge the brother and father, the MM took the submission into consideration. The court said the MM also observed that in the woman’s statement there were “no allegations” against these two (brother and the father). “Thus, she discharged them,” the court records said.
Asking both the discharged accused to appear before the MM court and ordering the trial court to “frame charges” against them, the judge said, “It is apparent that learned MM did not carefully read the statement u/s 164 CrPC… FIR is not the encyclopaedia of the case. The veracity of both statements will be tested through cross-examination.”