Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 937 (PAT)

Sukhlal Singh v. State Of Bihar

2010-04-23

RAKESH KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. 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 17.2.1998 passed in complaint Case No.854 of 1997 by Sub Divisional judicial Magistrate, Nawadah. By the said order, learned Magistrate had taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 147,447 and 427 of the indian Penal Code. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of order dated 13.4.1999 passed in Cr. Revision No.51 of 1998/3 of 1999 passed by A. D. J. II, nawadah. By the said order, the learned Additional sessions Judge has rejected the Cr. Revision No.51 of 1998,which was filed against the order of cognizance. 2. Short fact of the case is that the opposite party no.2 filed a complaint petition in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, nawadah vide Complaint Case No.854 of 1997. It was alleged by the complainant that the accused persons including the petitioner, who was at the relevant time Mukhiya of Orhanpur Panchayat, forcibly was stacking earth with a view to create a public road. It was alleged by the complainant that this Court in a writ petition had directed not to make any construction on the private land of the petitioner. 3. It was also alleged by the complainant that in a suit filed by the complainant, there was an order of injunction even then in contravention of all the directions of the court, the accused persons forcibly has committed the offence alleged by the complainant by way of making/creating a road on the private land of the complainant. After filing the complaint petition, the complainant was examined on s. A. and in support of his complaint, the complainant examined three witnesses,who categorically corroborated the allegation of the complainant. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial magistrate after being satisfied with the materials available on record, by the impugned order has taken cognizance as mentioned above. 4. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while challenging the order of cognizance as well as order of rejection of revision petition, has argued that the petitioner had not played any role as alleged by the complainant and without any material, the court had taken cognizance even against this petitioner. He further submits that present complaint petition has been maliciously filed by the complainant. He further submits that present complaint petition has been maliciously filed by the complainant. On those grounds, he has prayed for quashing of order of cognizance as well as the order whereby the revision was rejected. 5. Shri Binay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2, has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has prayed for rejection of the present petition. He has submitted that the complaint petition itself categorically describes the commission of offence by all the accused persons including this petitioner and submits that the learned Magistrate has rightly passed order of cognizance. 6. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioner filed a revision petition vide Cr. Revision No.51 of 1998 and the learned Additional sessions Judge-II has rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner. 7. I have examined the materials available on record as well as I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the side. On perusal of the complaint petition itself, the court is satisfied that specific case was made out in the present complaint and while taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate had committed no error. Similarly, the revisional court has rightly rejected the revision petition. 8. Besides, absence of any merit in the present petition,i am of the view that the petitioner in the garb of invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.482 of the code of Criminal Procedure, has virtually filed a second revision petition, which according to Section 397 (3) of Cr. P. C. , is barred. 9. Be that as it may, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not find any merit in the present case and petition stands rejected. 10. In this case, by order dated 28.9.1999, while issuing notice to the opposite party no.2, this Court had directed that in the meantime,further proceeding in connection with complaint Case No.854 of 1997 pending in the court of S. D. J. M. , Nawadah shall remain stayed. Subsequently, by order dated 17.4.2000,this petition was admitted for hearing. However, while admitting the case, this Court had directed that interim order dated 28.9.1999 is modified to the extent that further proceeding in connection with complaint Case No.854 of 1997 pending in the court of S. D. J. M. , Nawadah shall remain stayed only so far as petitioner is concerned. However, while admitting the case, this Court had directed that interim order dated 28.9.1999 is modified to the extent that further proceeding in connection with complaint Case No.854 of 1997 pending in the court of S. D. J. M. , Nawadah shall remain stayed only so far as petitioner is concerned. In view of rejection of the present petition, interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 11. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith.