Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 859 (JHR)

Indira Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2007-11-19

RAKESH RANJAN PRASAD

body2007
ORDER R.R. Prasad, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, learned Counsel appearing for the State and learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite-Party No. 2. 2. This application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 5.5.2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Chatra whereby order passed by the Court below refusing to take cognizance against the Petitioners was set aside and consequently the matter was remanded to the Court below for further enquiry and also for quashing the order dated 4.1.2006 whereby cognizance of the offence under Sections 465 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the Petitioners. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that Opposite- Party No. 2 had filed a complaint against the Petitioners wherein it was alleged that the Petitioners playing fraud got the sale-deed executed but the Court below did not take any cognizance as the Court did not find any criminal case being made out against the Petitioners and that order was challenged before the Sessions Judge, Chatra and the learned Sessions Judge without hearing the Petitioners set aside the order whereby the Court had refused to take cognizance of the offence and remanded the matter for further enquiry and also the Court below without hearing took cognizance of the offence and hence, the Petitioners have filed this Criminal Miscellaneous application. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners by referring Section 398 of the Code of Criminal Procedure submits that it was mandatory on the part of the revisional Court to hear the Petitioners against whom the Court below had not taken any cognizance of the offence and, therefore, order passed by the revisional Court as well as order taking cognizance of the offence against the Petitioners are bad. Learned Counsel in this respect refers a decision passed by this Court in a case of Ram-sewak Choudhary v. State of Jharkhand and Anr., in Cr. M.P. No. 369 of 2003 and also a reported decision rendered in a case of Sayeed Bhagat and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr. reported in 1999 BCCR 661. 5. Having regard to the provision as contained in Section 398 as well as the submission made on behalf of the Petitioners, I do fully agree with the submission made on behalf of the Petitioners. v. State of Bihar and Anr. reported in 1999 BCCR 661. 5. Having regard to the provision as contained in Section 398 as well as the submission made on behalf of the Petitioners, I do fully agree with the submission made on behalf of the Petitioners. The Petitioners were required to be heard before the learned Sessions Judge when the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order whereby the Court below bad refused to take cognizance of the offence against the Petitioners. 6. Accordingly, the order dated 5.5.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chatra in Cr. Rev. No. 15 of 2005 and consequently, the order dated 4.1.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chatra in Complaint Case No. 96 of 2003 are set aside and this case is remanded before the revisional Court for hearing afresh by giving due notice to the Petitioners as well as opposite-parties. 7. In the result, this application is allowed. Application allowed.