Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1587 (JHR)

Jyotika Srivastava v. State of Jharkhand

2012-11-02

H.C.MISHRA

body2012
JUDGMENT By Court: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This revision application has been filed against the order dated 17.12.2003 passed by Sri V. K. Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, in C/1-230 of 2001, whereby upon hearing on the point of charge, the Court below found that prima facie offence is made out against these petitioners under Sections 420, 406, 427, 428, 448 of the Indian Penal Code and directed them to appear in the Court for framing of the charge. 3. It appears that the complaint petition was filed by the complainant opposite party No. 2 before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, which was registered as C/1-230 of 2001. From perusal of the compliant petition, it appears that the complainant and the accused persons are the landlord and tenant and there is dispute between them for vacating the tenanted premises. After filing of the complaint petition, the petitioners moved this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 4537 of 2001, for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against them, which was dismissed by a detailed order dated 8.7.2002, wherein this Court took into consideration the fact that there was dispute between the landlord and tenant and alternative remedy was there in the Civil Court. This Court however, held that it is well settled that the criminal proceeding cannot be thwarted merely because civil case is also maintainable, and accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed by this Court. However, a liberty was given by this Court to the petitioners to raise all their points at the time of framing of charge. 4. Subsequently, the petitioners were heard at the time of framing of charge and the impugned order was passed by the Court below on 17.12.2003 finding that prima facie offence is made out against these petitioners under Sections 420, 406, 427, 428 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code. From perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the only point taken by the petitioners before the Court below was that there was a civil remedy to the complainant and the Court below, relying upon the order passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 4537 of 2001, negated the contention of the petitioners. From perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the only point taken by the petitioners before the Court below was that there was a civil remedy to the complainant and the Court below, relying upon the order passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 4537 of 2001, negated the contention of the petitioners. The Court below also discussed the materials, available on record, and found prima facie offences as aforementioned and directed the petitioners to appear before the Court for framing of the charge. 5. Thus, from the impugned order, it is apparent that only point that was taken by the petitioners before the Court below was that the civil remedy was available to the complainant and the said contention has been negated by the Court below, and rightly so, in view of the order dated 8.7.2002 passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 4537 of 2001, wherein, this Court had specifically answered the said question against the petitioners. In view of the findings given by this Court, the Court below had no option but to negate the only contention made by the petitioners that civil remedy was also available to the complainant. The Court below also took into consideration the materials on record and has passed the impugned order. Once it is held by this Court that the criminal proceeding against the petitioner cannot be thwarted merely because civil case is also maintainable, in my considered view, the same question cannot be allowed to be raised by filing a fresh applications again and again at the different stages of the same proceeding. Any interference by this Court at this stage on the same ground would amount to annulling the order passed by a co-ordinate Bench, which in my considered view, is not at all permissible. 6. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this revision application, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith.