Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 652 (PAT)

Ram Bilash Das v. State Of Bihar

2010-04-06

RAKESH KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar and j. JJ. 1. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner either to press this petition or to make a prayer even for adjournment. 2. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 19.2.1999 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, in Complaint Case No.537c of 1997. 3. On perusal of the petition it transpires that earlier on the basis of fardbeyan of opposite party no.2, first information report vide Khodawanpur P. S. Case No.29 of 1996 was registered for the offence under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that after investigation final form was submitted by the police. It also appears that a protest petition was filed on behalf of the informant. Subsequently, the protest petition was kept on complaint side. Thereafter, the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and in support of the complaint case four witnesses were examined. After examination of materials available on the record including the complaint petition, statement of complainant on solemn affirmation and the evidence of four witnesses, the learned Magistrate by its order dated 19.2.1999 took cognizance of the offence under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Mr. Pramod Manbash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that though there was truth in the allegation made by the informant, the police connived with the accused persons and thereafter accused persons were exonerated. After noticing the fact that the police was favouring the accused persons, a protest petition was filed by the complainant and after examining the complainant and the witnesses by the impugned order, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. He submits that order of cognizance is in accordance with law and the petition is liable to be rejected. 5. I have also examined the materials available on the record as well as the order dated 19.2.1999 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in Complaint Case No.537c of 1997. I find that in the order of cognizance, there is no error. 6. Ccordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The petition stands rejected. 7. 5. I have also examined the materials available on the record as well as the order dated 19.2.1999 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in Complaint Case No.537c of 1997. I find that in the order of cognizance, there is no error. 6. Ccordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The petition stands rejected. 7. By order dated 9.8.1999 while admitting the present petition this court had directed that pending hearing of this application, further proceeding as regards the petitioner in Case No.537 (C) of 1997 in the court below shall remain stayed. 8. In view of rejection of this petition, the interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 9. Let this order be communicated to the court below forthwith.