Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 795 (PAT)

Jagdish Mishra v. State Of Bihar

2006-09-04

REKHA KUMARI

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard. 2. This is an application filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 27.10.05 by which cognizance has been taken, against the petitioner and others of the case u/ss. 341, 323, 379, 506/34 of the I.PC. and Sec.27 of the Arms Act. 3. It appears that a complaint case bearing no. 694C/04 was filed by the complainant (Opposite Party No. 2) which was sent to police for investigation and police case bearing Laheri PS. Case No.124/04 was registered. The police after investigation submitted final form showing the petitioner as not sent up. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint-cum-protest petition and the case proceeded on that protest petition. The complainant was also examined on S.A. and enquiry u/s 202 was made. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class by considering the statement of the complainant and her witnesses giving proper reasons dismissed the complaint petition under Sec.203 of Cr.RC.The complainant went in revision. In the said Criminal Revision No. 251/05 learned Sessions Judge observed that at the stage of taking cognizance a Magistrate is required only to see whether any prima facie case has been made out against the accused or not. He cannot evaluate the evidence meticulously, which has been done by him in his order. He accordingly set aside the order and directed to pass fresh order after further enquiry. The learned Magistrate after receipt of the order passed in Cr. Revision after perusing the record and the statement of the complainant and the witnesses examined by her found a prima facie case against the accused persons under Sections 341, 323, 379, 506/34 of the I.P.C. and he accordingly passed the impugned order. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is bad in law. The learned Magistrate was directed to make further enquiry, but without making such further enquiry, he passed the impugned order on the same material. 5. It may be mentioned that further enquiry is not restricted to mere taking of evidence. It also includes reconsideration. So where further enquiry was ordered u/s 398 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate may take further evidence if forthcoming or if considered proper, he may issue summons on reconsideration of the evidence already available on record. It is not obligatory to proceed further under Sec.202 Cr.P.C. 6. It also includes reconsideration. So where further enquiry was ordered u/s 398 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate may take further evidence if forthcoming or if considered proper, he may issue summons on reconsideration of the evidence already available on record. It is not obligatory to proceed further under Sec.202 Cr.P.C. 6. Therefore, if after considering the materials already available on record, the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order, there is no infirmity in it. 7. The application is, hence, dismissed.