Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1897 (PAT)

Sudama Yadav v. State Of Bihar

2007-12-14

REKHA KUMARI

body2007
Judgment Rekha Kumari, J. 1. This application filed Under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 31.8.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hilsa, Nalanda in Complaint Case No. 335C/2005 whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for offence against the petitioners Under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complainant had filed a police case bearing Hilsa P.S. Case No. 426/2004 dated 21.12.2004. The case was investigated and the police found the case not true and apart from submitting a final report against the petitioners, the I.O. also filed a complaint for initiating proceeding Under Sections 182 and 211 I.P.C. against the informant/O.P. of the present case. The said final report was also accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate but on the basis of the protest complaint petition filed by the complainant/O.P. No. 2 bearing No. 335C/2005 the learned Judicial Magistrate found sufficient materials to proceed with the case for the offences punishable Under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. and directed to issue summons against them. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that when the case was found not from by the Police Officer and the report was accepted, the learned Magistrate should not have passed the impugned order. In support of his submission he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in in which it has been held that the issuance of summons is serious matter and the power has to be exercised carefully. 4. Counsel for the O.P. opposed the submissions and contended that a bare perusal of the protest cum complaint petition would show that the offence against the petitioners is made out and the Judicial Magistrate has acted well within its jurisdiction in finding a prima facie case against the petitioners to proceed against them. 5. From the perusal of the protest cum complaint petition, it appears that the complainant/O.P. No. 2 has levelled allegations against the Investigating Officers regarding his fair and impartial investigation of the case. It has been alleged in the protest petition that the petitioners assaulted the relatives of the complainant and also snatched away ornaments and other articles from them. 5. From the perusal of the protest cum complaint petition, it appears that the complainant/O.P. No. 2 has levelled allegations against the Investigating Officers regarding his fair and impartial investigation of the case. It has been alleged in the protest petition that the petitioners assaulted the relatives of the complainant and also snatched away ornaments and other articles from them. The impugned order also shows that an enquiry Under Sec. 202 Cr.P.C. was held and the learned Magistrate after considering the statements of the complainant and the witnesses found a prima facie case Under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. and then has passed the impugned order. Therefore, it does not appear that the learned Magistrate acted in a mechanical manner. The above decision is not applicable in this case. There is also no illegality if the Magistrate takes cognizance on protest complaint after the acceptance of final form submitted by police. 6. Therefore, there appears no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The application is dismissed.