Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 349 (CHH)

JAI PRAKASH PATHAK & OTH ERS v. SURENDRA GENDLEY

2008-12-03

T.P.SHARMA

body2008
ORDER 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.5.2004 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Criminal Revision No.84/2004 whereby the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge while exercising the revisional court against the order of dismissal of the complaint w1der Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code ') passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur has directed to register the case against the applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The order is challenged on the ground that after dismissal of the revision under Section 203 of the Code, the revisional court is not competent to pass any direction for registering the case against the applicants. The revisional court is only empowered to direct for further inquiry. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. 4. Only short question for consideration in this case is whether the revisional court is empowered to direct the court below for registration of criminal complaint. Section 398 of the Code reads as under: "398. Power to order inquiry. -On examining any record under section 397 or otherwise, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrates subordinate to him to make, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate may himself make or direct any subordinate Magistrate to make, further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under section 203 of sub-section (4) of section 204 or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged: Provided that no Court shall make any direction under this section for inquiry into the case of any person who has been discharged unless such person has had an opportunity of showing cause why such direction should not be made." 5. Provisions of Section 398 of the Code are clear and unambiguous. The revisional Court is only empowered under Section 398 of the Code to direct the subordinate Magistrate to make further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under Section 203 of the Code. Provisions of Section 398 of the Code are clear and unambiguous. The revisional Court is only empowered under Section 398 of the Code to direct the subordinate Magistrate to make further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under Section 203 of the Code. In the instant case while exercising the revisional court has directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, for registration of the criminal complaint for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the applicants/complainants for which the revisional court was not competent. The revisional court has exceeded I the jurisdiction vested in it. 6. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. Order for registration of the complaint passed by the revisional court is hereby set aside. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur is directed to make further inquiry into the complaint which has been dismissed under Section 203 of the Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 398 of the Code. 7. In view of above, M.(Cri. )P.No.419/2005 stands disposed of. Revision Allowed.