V.N.Varma - (1.)THIS is an application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. filed by Lakshmi Prasad and R. P. Sharma for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3100 of 1976 pending before C. J. M. Allahabad, on the ground that on the allegations made in the complaint no case of any kind is made out against them and the case in question was nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court.
(2.)THE applicants Lakshmi Prasad and R. P. Sharma are railway employees both being Travelling Ticket Examiners on Northern Railways. On 17-6-76 they were on duty in 1 Up Kalka Mail at different timings. It is said that on 17-6-76 the opp. party (R. G. Pandiya) and his wife were to travel by 1 Up Kalka Mail from Allahabad upto Kalka and so both of them had got two berths reserved in a Second Class 3 Tier compartment for their journey. Accordingly, both of them boarded 1 Up Kalka Mail at Allahabad at 9.15 A. M. and took their seats in a Second Class 3 Tier Compartment. Applicant no. 2 arrived in the compartment when the train started moving. THEy then inquired from him about their reserved berths. He told them that their reservation had been cancelled. THEy were greatly non-plussed on knowing this thing. THEy were, however, to cover a long journey and they, therefore, requested to him to make some arrangement for them. He assured them that when the train would arrive at Kanpur, he will arrange for their accommodation in the compartment. When the train was about to reach Kanpur, they again reminded him of the assurance given by him, whereupon he told them that his duty would end at Kanpur, but he would tell his substitute Ho make suitable arrangement for them. [It is alleged that when the train arrived tat Kanpur, applicant no. 1 came in [place of applicant no. 2 and asked the opposite party and his wife to leave the compartment failing which he would throw out their luggage. THE opposite party pleaded with him not to do so, but be did not relent. In the meanwhile the train started and applicant no. 1 tried to throw his luggage out of the compartment. He and the other passengers of the compartment stopped him from doing so. After some time, he requested applicant no. 1 to take fresh reservation charges from him and provide two empty berths for him and his wife but applicant no. 1 paid no heed to his request. Instead he inquired from him as to how he had been travelling/in this compartment uptil now. THE opposite party fell humiliated and asked applicant no. 1 to tell him his name and he wrongly gave out his name as Dinesh Kumar. When he asked him to give his name in writing, he lost his temper and caught him by his coller. He also retaliated and ultimately even pulled the chain and the train stopped. Applicant no. 1 then called the Guard of the train and the Guard took his and his wife's ticket. THEreafter the train moved and reached Etawah. At Etawah applicant no. 1 and some other railway employees forced him and his wife to get down from the train. After they had got down from the train, they were told that they were in custody. THE opposite party lodged a complaint in writing with the Station Master at Etawah. but to no effect. Later on, he complained to the higher authorities also but in vain. He then filed a complaint against the applicants and on the basis of that complaint the applicants were summoned under sections 120 and 129 of the Indian Railways Act and sections 352 and 342 I.P.C. It is for the quash-ment of this "complaint that the present application under section 482 Cr.P,C, has been riled.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at sufficient length and after doing so I am firmly of the view that this application must be allowed. I say so because even if the allegations of the complaint filed by the opposite party are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, no case of any kind is made out against the applicants. As applicant no. 2 was said to be the person who had set the ball rolling in this case, I will take up the case against him first. Admittedly, on 17.6.76 he was Travelling Ticket Examiner on duty in 1 Up Kalka Mail in one of the Second Class 3 tier compartments. The opposite-party and his wife boarded the same compartment at Allahabad for their journey to Kalka. According to the opposite-party two berths stood reserved for him and his wife, but when he inquired from applicant no. 2 about his two berths, the latter told him that he had cancelled the reservation of his berths. He, however, assured him that he would make suitable arrangement for him and his wife at Kanpur. He, however, did not do so. The grievance of the opposite- party is that as applicant no. 2 interfered with his comfort, he was guilty of an offence under section 120 of the Indian Railways Act. The provision of section 120 can come into play only when it is established that the opposite-party was a lawful occupant of the compartment in which he was found travelling. Admittedly, the compartment in which he was found travelling was a Second Class 3 Tier Compartment in which only passengers having reservation could travel. The opposite-party did not have any reservation for his berth in that compartment. It is nothing but an after-thought on the part of the opposite- party to say that he had two berths reserved in that compartment and applicant no. 2 wrongfully cancelled his reservation. In the complaint filed by him, the opposite-party had never mentioned that applicant no. 2 had cancelled his reservation. All that he had mentioned in the complaint is that when the opposite-party inquired from applicant no. 2 about his and his wife's berth in the compartment, he told him that his reservation had already been cancelled. From this it is obvious that applicant no. 2, himself had not cancelled the reservation of the opposite party and his wife, the reservation had been cancelled much earlier. It may have been cancelled by the reservation clerk of Allahabad Railway Station. At Allahabad Railway Station applicant no. 2 would have just got a chart showing reservation of berths to different passengers. It was with the help of that chart that he had to give berths to those passengers. In that chart the name of the opposite- party and his wife did not find place. It was, therefore, not possible for him to give berths to them. If anybody had done mischief and had wrongly cancelled the reservation that stood in the name of the opposite-party and his wife, the opposite-party is at liberty to take action against him in accordance with the railway rules. There was no occasion for him to nurse any grievance against applicant no. 2. He had to act according to the chart which had been given to him at the railway station before the departure of the train, and if he acted according to that chart, he committed no wrong. If I may say so he would have placed himself in the wrong if he had gone against the chart. That being so, he was not at all unjustified in refusing to give berths to the opposite-party and his wife. Therefore, the question of his interfering with the comfort of the opposite-party and his wife in this case does not arise at all. On the other hand, from the allegations made in the complaint itself, I find the applicant no. 2 was out to help them in overcoming their difficulty. He had promised to accommodate them at Kanpur if it was possible for him to do so. His duty on the train, however, ended at Kanpur and he could not do anything in the matter. Therefore, after seeing everything as a whole, it is clear that no case of any kind is made out against applicant mo. 2. His prosecution was therefore, nothing but an abuse of the process of the court.

Next I come to the case of applicant no. 1. He came in the picture for the first time at Kanpur Railway Station. He took charge of the duty from applicant no. 2. Applicant no. 1 must have got the reservation chart from applicant no. 2 and it was according to that chart that he too was to function. In that chart, as stated earlier, no reservation of any berth stood either in the name of the opposite party or his wife. Applicant no. 1, therefore, asked both of them to get down from the compartment at Kanpur. He was, perfectly justified in asking them to get down from the compartment because they had been unlawfully occupying it. They, however, refused to get down from the compartment. Their refusal to get down from the compartment was most unjustified and no one can find fault with the conduct of applicant no. 1 if he threatened to evict them from the compartment with their luggage. However, before anything coula happen at Kanpur, the train left for its onward journey. Soon thereafter the opposite- party asked applicant no. 1 to take fresh reservation charges and give one berth each, to him and his wife. There was no vacant berth available in the compartment and there was, therefore, no question of his acceding to his request. He again told the opposite party that he and his wife were illegal occupants in the compartment and this led to exchange of hot words between them. It is said that applicant no. 1 caught his collar and tried to assault him. Even if one took it the applicant no. 1 did so, he did so in the lawful discharge of his duties. As the opposite- party was an unlawful occupant of the compartment, applicant no. 1 could have even used force to evict him from the compartment in the interest of the security of the other passengers of that compartment. Therefore, on the facts stated, no offence of any kind against applicant no. 1, also is made out, and his prosecution at the instance of the opposite-party is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court.

(3.)FURTHER, there is one thing more which needs to be mentioned in regard to the case of applicant no. 1. If applicant no. 1 had committed any offence a all, he had committed it either at Kanpur or at some place beyond Kan- pur. His prosecution at Allahabad was, therefore, unwarranted. Section 183 CrPC deals with offences committed on journey or voyage. It says that when an offence is committed, while the person against whom the offence is committed, is in the course of performing journey, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court through or into whose local jurisdiction that person in tike course of that journey passed. The learned counsel for the opposite party wants this section to be interpreted in a liberal manner. According to him, if an offence is committed against a person during the course of journey, that offence should be tried either at the place where the person against whom the offence was committed boarded the train or at the place where his journey was to end, or at any other place lying between these two places. This interpretation may hold good while considering those cases in which the offence was not detected at the time when it was actually committed, but was detected later on, say at the end of the journey. In that event, because of the lack of knowledge of the place where the offence was committed, it could be tried at any of the place as pointed out by the learned counsel. However, in those cases where the offence is seen being committed, it must be tried in the Court in whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Suppose a person boards a train at Allahabad for going to Bombay, and at Naini (three miles away from Allahabad), his pocket is picked in the train, and the offender is caught red-handed. Thereafter the person concerned continues his journey and reaches Bombay. To say that the culprit caught at Naini, could be tried at Bombay or at any other place between Allahabad and Bombay, will be ridiculous. In my opinion, he must be tried at Allahabad where the offence was committed. This is the only view possible after going through the provisions oil sections 183 and 177 CrPC. Both these sections are to be construed harmoniously and not independent of each other. Illogical results will follow if they are viewed in isolation. In this case applicant no. 1 was said to have committed offence against the opposite party at Kanpur and beyond that, and, therefore, his trial at Allahabad was undoubtedly without jurisdiction.
Thus, from a perusal of what I have mentioned above, it is clear that the continuance of the case against the applicants is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. It is, therefore, a fit case in which the proceedings of the case must be quashed. Accordingly, I quash these proceedings. Ordered accordingly.