Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 531 (PAT)

Madhu Lal Halwai @ Madhu Lal v. State of Bihar

2008-03-20

SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA

body2008
ORDER : Despite notice to opposite parties no. 3, 4, 5 and 6 none appeared on their behalf. 2. The revision application is against ORDER :dated 6.3.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nawadah in connection with Complaint Case No. 734 of 2003 whereby he dismissed the complaint petition filed by the complainant. 3. A complaint case was filed by the complainant in which he alleged that his son Akhilesh Kumar Halwai was married in the year 1989 with the daughter of Raghunandan Prasad Halwai of Kauakol was found murdered. The complainant knew this fact through newspaper dated 15.8.2003 that a person has committed suicide by consuming poison, that person was son of the complainant. The complainant went to the house of in-laws of his son where his son was generally residing. On enquiry the accused persons were not noticed about his son and not satisfactory explanation was given. The witnesses present there told that the complainant's son has been killed. The post mortem was done of the dead body and the doctor has found injury on the right side of chest, so the suspicion of the complainant was fortified. The complainant rushed to the police station but no case was registered rather one U/D case was registered. All the efforts of the complainant for registration of the case failed. So complaint case was filed. 4. In support of the complainant, the witnesses were examined and all the witnesses supported the case leveled in the complaint petition. Their statements were specific that the complainant's son was killed by the accused persons. 5. Submission of me learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Judicial Magistrate did not consider this fact that all the witnesses have supported the complaint case regarding murder committed by the in-laws and the complaint case was dismissed holding that important witnesses were not produced. At the stage of enquiry the complainant is required to prove only a prima facie case and entire aspect of the matter cannot be looked into. At present stage if prima facie case is made out then the court has only one option to proceed further. Further submission is that the court has passed an ORDER :showing that accusation appears to be suspicious. 6. Though accused persons were noticed but they have not appeared to oppose on merit also. At present stage if prima facie case is made out then the court has only one option to proceed further. Further submission is that the court has passed an ORDER :showing that accusation appears to be suspicious. 6. Though accused persons were noticed but they have not appeared to oppose on merit also. I am of the view that the witnesses of the complainant made in the complaint case, supported the case. So it was incumbent upon the court below to have decided that the case should be proceeded against the accused persons. 7. Accordingly the ORDER :of the court below is set aside and this revision application is allowed. The court is directed to proceed further the matter.