Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 494 (PAT)

Janardan Singh v. State of Bihar

2006-06-14

body2006
ORDER Heard. 2. This application has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for quashing the order dated 20.10.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Criminal Revision No. 272 of 2005 dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioner and affirming the order dated 12.8.2005 passed by Sri S.K. Singh, J.M. Bhagalpur in Complaint Case No. 1859 of 2004. The learned Magistrate by the order dated 12.8.2005 has dismissed the complaint petition under section 204(4) of the Code for not filing the necessary requisites by the complainant. 3. It appears that a complaint case bearing No. 1859 of 2004 was filed by the petitioner in which after enquiry under section 202 of the Code by order dated 14.7.2005 the accused persons were ordered to be summoned for facing trial under sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner was directed to file requisites and the case was adjourned to 29.7.2005 for filing requisites. On 29.7.2005 no requisite was filed and a time petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner on 29.7.2005 was given last opportunity to file requisites by 12.8.2005. On 12.8.2005, however, the petitioner did not appear in court nor the requisites were filed by him. He did not take any step on that date. The learned Magistrate accordingly dismissed the complaint under section 204(4) of the Code. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant was not given sufficient opportunity to file necessary requisites. Only two dates were given for filing requisites which were not sufficient. The complainant, on account of flood, could not appear in Court on 12.8.2005 and hence, dismissal of the case was improper. 5. As two adjournments were given to the petitioner for filing requisites, I agree with the learned Sessions Judge that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner in this direction. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. 6. It may also be mentioned here that the revision order of the Sessions Judge can be challenged before the High Court under section 482 of the Code but the High Court should not act as a second revisional court in the garb of exercising inherent powers. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. 6. It may also be mentioned here that the revision order of the Sessions Judge can be challenged before the High Court under section 482 of the Code but the High Court should not act as a second revisional court in the garb of exercising inherent powers. While exercising its inherent power in such a matter, it must be conscious of the fact that the learned Sessions Judge has declined to exercise his revisionary power in the matter. The High Court should interfere only when the interest of justice demands for quashing of the order. 7. In this case, however, I do not find that the interest of justice calls for any interference. It is apparent from the order of the learned Magistrate that the petitioner was not keen in pursuing the case. As the complaint has not been dismissed on merit, the petitioner could also file a second complaint. 8. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this application. It 1s accordingly dismissed.