Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1601 (PAT)

Ramakant Singh v. State Of Bihar

2010-07-20

RAKESH KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. Today again, when the case was called out, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. However, today again, Shri Lala Sachindra Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2 is present Yesterday (19.7.2010) also, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. However, the case was adjourned for a day with an indication that no further adjournment shall be granted. 2. It was noticed by this Court that in this case, order of stay was continuing since 17. 8.2001. 3. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of order dated 31.5.2001 passed by Sri V.K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai in Complaint Case No. 1122 of 1999/Tr. No. 680 of 2000. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 323, 148, 448 and 386 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2, Sri Lala Sachindra Kumar, submits that the complaint petition itself categorically describes regarding the commission of offence and after filing of the complaint petition, the complainant was examined on S.A. by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai and thereafter, the case was transferred under Section 192(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Court of Sri V.K.Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Begusarai. At the stage of enquiry, three witnesses were examined as enquiry witnesses, who categorically supported the case of the complainant and thereafter, the learned Magistrate, by its order dated 13.1.2000, after being satisfied that prima facie offence under Sections 323, 148, 448 and 386 of the Indian Penal Code was made out, has passed the impugned prder and directed for summoning the petitioner, who was made sole accused in the complaint petition. The stand, which has been taken by Shri Lala Sachindra Kumar appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2, has been supported by Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 5. Besides hearing learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and State in absence of learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the materials available on record and examined the complaint petition also. 6. 5. Besides hearing learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and State in absence of learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the materials available on record and examined the complaint petition also. 6. I am of the view that there is no ground for interfering with the order of cognizance that too, while exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which has to be exercised in rarest of rare cases. 7. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this petition and petition stands rejected. 8. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order dated 17.8.2001, whereby further proceeding in Court below was directed to remain stayed stands automatically vacated. 9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court below forthwith.