Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1936 (PAT)

Krishna Kant Jha v. State Of Bihar

2010-08-24

RAKESH KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT RAKESH KUMAR, J. 1. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 22.1.2002 passed by the learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Cr. Revision No.247 of 2000/11 of 2001. By the said order, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has set aside the order dated 22.11.2000 passed by Shri P.K.Shukla, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sitamarhi in Complaint Case No.C1-377 of 2000, Trial No. 1066 of 2000. The learned Magistrate by order dated 22.11.2000 had rejected the complaint petition under Section 203 of the Code of criminal Procedure. 2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2, who is daughter in law of petitioner nos.1 and 2, had filed a complaint, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.C1-377 of 2000. In the complaint petition, it was alleged that when the complainant was sleeping, in the night at about 10.00 P.M. on 12.5.2000 accused petitioners intruded into the house of the complainant, assaulted her and forcibly took certain amounts from the house of the complainant. After filing of the complaint petition, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and transferred the case under Section 192(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for its enquiry and disposal to the court of Sri V.P.Srivastava , Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi and the matter was inquired under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, Sri P.K. Shukla, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, after conducting enquiry and examining the witnesses rejected the complaint petition under Section 203 of the Code Criminal Procedure. 3. Aggrieved with the order of rejection of the complaint petition, the complainant preferred a revision vide Cr.Revision No.247 of 2000/11 of 2001. The learned 3rd Addl.Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi after hearing the parties at length and by assigning a detailed reason has allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of rejection of the complaint petition and remitted back the matter to the learned Magistrate with a direction to make further enquiry and pass order in accordance with law. 4. The learned 3rd Addl.Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi after hearing the parties at length and by assigning a detailed reason has allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of rejection of the complaint petition and remitted back the matter to the learned Magistrate with a direction to make further enquiry and pass order in accordance with law. 4. Sri Lalit Narayan Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while challenging the order of revisional court submits that since the petitioner no.1 had earlier filed a complaint against Opp.Party no.2, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.C-1078 of 1999, the present complaint petition was filed by Opp.Party no.2 in retaliation. It has further been submitted that there were material contradictions in the statement of the complainant and its witnesses. It was further submitted that the learned Magistrate had rightly rejected the complaint petition since the complainant in her support during the enquiry had produced only two witnesses, who were none else but son and daughter of the complainant and, as such, the learned Magistrate, according to Sri Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners, had rightly rejected the complaint petition. On the aforesaid grounds, it has been prayed to set aside the order dated 22.1.2002 passed in Cr.Revision No.247 of 2000/11 of 2001 by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi. 5. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has argued that there is no defect in the order of the revisional court. It was submitted that the revisional Court has categorically discussed the illegality committed by the learned Magistrate, while rejecting the complaint petition. Accordingly, it has been prayed to reject the present Petition. 6. Despite Opp.Party no.2 has entered her appearance through Advocate, at the time of hearing none has come forward on her behalf. 7. Besides hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and the State, I have also perused the materials available on record, particularly the order dated 22.1.2002 passed by the learned 3rd Addl.Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Cr.Revision No.247 of 2000/11 of 2001. After going though the impugned order, the Court is satisfied that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated that there were grave illegality and irregularity in the order of learned Magistrate, whereby the complaint petition was rejected. After going though the impugned order, the Court is satisfied that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated that there were grave illegality and irregularity in the order of learned Magistrate, whereby the complaint petition was rejected. The Court is also of the opinion that the learned Magistrate only on the ground of minor contradiction in the statement made in the complaint petition as well as statement of the complainant recorded on S.A. was not required to dismiss the complaint petition. Similarly, at the time of cognizance it hardly matters whether the enquiry witnesses were relative of the complainant or not. On the aforesaid grounds, the learned Magistrate was not required to reject the complaint petition that too in a situation where after order of cognizance, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had referred the matter under Section 192(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the learned Magistrate. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the opinion that the learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi has passed legal and reasoned order, which requires no interference by this Court. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 9. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith.