Full Judgment
Gokul Prasad, J.
1. The circumstances under which this application arises are rather lengthy and of a peculiar nature. It appears that one Sukhnandan, who was the lambardar of a village, paid up the Government revenue due from Musammat Dularia, one of the so-sharers. The accused is said to be her sarbarahkar or manager. Sukhanandan applied under Section 184 of the Land Revenue Act and got an ex parte order for the attachment of the property of the applicant. The applicant who had got information of this order applied on the 18th of March 1920 to the Naib-Tahsildar that the order of attachment was bad, inasmuch as he had nothing to do with Musammat Dularia. The Naib Tahsildar forwarded the application to the Deputy Collector for orders. On the 25th of March 1920 the Deputy Collector asked the Tahsildar for a report and stayed proceedings. This order reached the Tahsildar on the 27 the of March 1920. He informed the Naib-Tahsildar, the wasilbaqinawis and the qurqamin who are said to have received this order on the 28th of March 1920. Notwithstanding this, the qurqamin proceeded to attach the house of Sheo Balak saying that the house belonged to Musammat Dularia. The applicant, therefore, put in an application before the Deputy Collector who asked the Tahsildar to enquire into the matter and report whether the applicant was the sarbarahkar of Musammat Dularia. The Tahsildar made enquiries and came to the conclusion that the accused was not the sarbarahkar of Musammat Dularia and that the attached house did not belong to her. On the 12th of May 1920 the Deputy Collector directed the attachment to be removed and it was so removed. On the 31st of May 1920 the applicant, Sheo Balak, made a complaint to the District Magistrate against the Naib-Tahsildar and the qurqamin alleging that they had a grudge against him, and acted most improperly in attaching his house and ill-treating and insulting the ladies of his house, and that notice should be taken of thin conduct of theirs. The District Magistrate, who seems to be a new man, passed an order to the following effect: 'Sub-Divisional Magistrate, please take the statement of this man on oath and, if possible, institute a suit against him under Section 182, Indian Penal Code.' This order was passed on the same day on which the application was put in without even examining the complainant in support of his application, The accused applied through his Pleader for a copy of this order which was refused. On the 16th of June 1920 the Sab-Divisional Magistrate took the statement of the complainant on oath and, without deciding his complaint or hearing his witnesses or any other evidence, issued a notice to the applicant on the 17th of June 1920 to show cause on the 30th June 1920 why a case under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code should not be started against him. The applicant applied for a copy of the full order dated the 17th of June 1920 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate but this copy was also refused. The applicant comes here in revision. A preliminary objection was taken by Mr. Malcomson, the learned Government Advocate, that no revision lies inasmuch as the applicant has been called upon to show cause and no order has been passed for his prosecution yet. I cannot accede to this argument. It has been held in the case of Chadha v. Emperor 36 Ind. Cas. 878 : 14 A.L.J. 861 : 18 Cr. L.J. 46 that an order like this can be revised and I am in full agreement with that decision. I, therefore, repel the preliminary objection.
2. The above statement of facts will show clearly that the whole case has been very badly managed. The applicant has not been given a chance of having his complaint enquired into and the order of the District Magistrate, practically directing his prosecution without any enquiry into the complaint, was most improper and was not justified by law. Moreover, in a case like this, where serious allegations are made against responsible officers like the Naib-Tahsildar, his subordinate, and the qurqamin it is both in the interests of the publics and the Government that the complaint should immediately and thoroughly be enquired into, and if it is found to be true the persons complained against should be removed from the service or otherwise dealt with. It is only when the complaint has been, after full and open enquiry, found to be false, that the complainant should be made to suffer the consequences of his action. It is only if proceedings are taken promptly in this way that the people can have confidence in the administration of justice. The whole action of the District Magistrate has been most ill-advised. I, therefore, allow this application in revision, set aside the order of the Court below directing the accused to show cause why he should not be prosecuted under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, and direct the Magistrate to proceed to a determination of the complaint of the accused according to law.