Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1076 (JHR)

Krishna Prajapati v. State of Jharkhand

2008-09-04

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2008
Order Heard the parties. 2. In this application the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 3.3.03 passed by the learned Magistrate in Case No. C1-1150/02 dismissing the protest petition filed by the petitioner and accepting the final report submitted by the Police under Section 173 Cr.P.C as well as the order dated 3.7.03 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order dated 3.3.03 passed by the Magistrate. 3. The short facts leading to the present application are that the petitioner lodged an F.I.R being Mango P.S. Case No. 66/02 against the O.P Nos. 2 & 3 which was registered under Sections 386/ 427/504/506 IPC. It was alleged in the FIR that the accused persons (i.e. O.P Nos. 2 & 3 herein) were collecting "Rangdari" Tax from the villagers and in that course they demanded Rs. 30,000/from the petitioner and when he did not oblige them the accused persons came on 3.3.02 and destroyed all the earthen pots kept there and constructed a hut in front of the house of the petitioner over a public land. The accused persons further extended threat of assault to the petitioner. 4. After completion of the investigation, the Police submitted the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C stating the case to be of civil nature. Against submission of the final report by the Police, the petitioner filed a protest petition before the learned Magistrate which on consideration of the facts and materials on record and after hearing the parties, was dismissed by the impugned order dated 3.3.03. 5. Learned Magistrate after considering the evidence of the witnesses produced on behalf of the complainant, as well as the materials collected during investigation by the Police which were recorded in the Case Diary, came to the conclusion that there was a land dispute between the complainant and the villagers who were making claim over the disputed land and the dispute, if any, between the parties was purely of a civil nature and the story of demanding money was unbelievable. 6. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Revisional Court. The revision application was also dismissed on 3.7.03. 6. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Revisional Court. The revision application was also dismissed on 3.7.03. On perusal of the revisional order, I find that the learned Sessions Judge has concurred with the findings arrived at by the learned Magistrate by holding that the allegation of demanding money by the accused persons appears to be quite improbable and the dispute was of civil nature. 7. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate should not have looked into or relied on the materials collected in the Case Diary for the purpose of passing orders on protest petition. The submission made is not convincing. In my view, when a petition by way of protest was already filed by the petitioner challenging the investigation of the Police then it was the duty of the Court rather it became encumbered upon him to examine the materials as to whether there was any material so as to constitute a prima facie case ? There is another hurdle in the way of the petitioner. Since he has already availed his remedy of revision before the Sessions Judge and therefore the second revision by the same party is barred under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. In order to overcome the said bar under the law, the petitioner has filed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It can safely be said that this application is nothing but a second revision in the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. So far as the first submission that there were materials before the Magistrate for taking cognizance is concerned, in my view, since both the Courts below have considered and discussed all the materials on record and then have come to the concurrent finding that there is no material to take cognizance of the offence alleged and the dispute between the parties is purely of a civil nature and therefore it is not desirable for this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to sit in appeal against the findings on facts arrived at by the two Courts below. 9. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this application which is accordingly, dismissed.