Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1390 (PAT)

Deata Devi v. State Of Bihar

2010-06-28

RAKESH KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard Shri Bimal Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 2. Both petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the order dated 2.3.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Cr. Revision No.28 of 2009. By the said order, learned Sessions Judge has rejected Cr. Revision No.28 of 2009, which was preferred by petitioners against the order dated 19.11.2008 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga in T.R. No.2308 of 2008 arising out of A.P.M. P.S. Case No.53 of 2005. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the discharge petition filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of both the petitioners. 3. Short fact of the case is that an F.I.R. was registered vide Ashok Paper Mill (Pator) P.S. Case No.53 of 2005 for the offence under Section 498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Both the petitioners along with others were named in the F.I.R. Of course, name of petitioner no.1 has not been categorically mentioned, but the word Samadhi has been mentioned. After registering F.I.R., the case was investigated and charge sheet was filed against both the petitioners and others. After submission of the charge sheet and cognizance at the stage of charge, a petition under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed on behalf of both the petitioners for their discharge, which was rejected on 19.11.2008. 4. Aggrieved with the order of rejection of discharge petition, petitioners filed a revision vide Cr. Revision No.28 of 2009, which too stood rejected on 2.3.2009. 5. Shri Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while challenging both the orders, submits that in the case, during investigation, nothing was collected against the petitioners and they were charge sheeted without any material. It was further submitted that place of occurrence in the present case is disputed. It was also argued that as per the F.I.R., main period of offence was from 22.5.2005 and till the date of filing of the F.I.R. and during that period, no material was collected indicating involvement of these petitioners. Accordingly, it has been prayed to quash both the orders. 6. It was also argued that as per the F.I.R., main period of offence was from 22.5.2005 and till the date of filing of the F.I.R. and during that period, no material was collected indicating involvement of these petitioners. Accordingly, it has been prayed to quash both the orders. 6. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. She, on the basis of materials available in the case diary, submits that in the case diary at paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, specific materiai has been collected showing the involvement of petitioners and on the strength of specific material against the petitioners, cognizance order was passed and the learned Magistrate, while hearing discharge petition filed by the petitioners, had also examined the case diary and thereafter, the discharge petition was rejected. It was further submitted by Smt. Pandey that said order was challenged by way of filing of Criminal Revision petition and once Criminal Revision petition was rejected, the petitioners were not entitled to again file the present petition in the garb of a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which amounts to second revision and same is barred under Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, she has prayed to reject the petition. 7. Besides hearing both the parties, I have perused the impugned orders and materials available on record. In the F.I.R. itself, there is averment of the informant showing the involvement of the petitioners. The learned Magistrate, while rejecting discharge petition by its order dated 19.11.2008, has discussed the materials collected during the investigation and prima facie satisfied with the allegation, has rejected the discharge petition. Said order was challenged in revision and revisional court also by a reasoned order has rejected the same. 8. I am of the view that while rejecting the discharge petition or rejecting Criminal Revision No.28 of 2009, both the courts below have committed no error. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and petition stands rejected.