Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 367 (PAT)

Suresh Singh v. State of Bihar

2012-02-29

RAKESH KUMAR

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Hirday Prasad Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Shri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of opposite party nos.2, 3 and 4. 2. The petitioner, who was complainant before the court below is before this Court invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of an order, which was passed on 23.4.2008 in Cr. Revision No.64 of 2007 by the learned 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C.III), Vaishali at Hajipur and the petitioner has also prayed for quashing of an order dated 15.2.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Vaishali at Hajipur in Complaint Case No.1502(C) of 2006, whereby complaint petition was rejected. By the said order dated 23.4.2008, the learned revisional court has refused to interfere with the rejection of the complaint petition filed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was filed by the petitioner on allegation of commission of offences by the accused persons under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Initially the complaint petition was filed by the petitioner, which was referred to the police and police, after investigation, submitted final report exonerating the accused persons. After submission of final report, in the case, protest petition was filed and protest petition was treated as complaint petition and the learned Magistrate conducted enquiry. After conducting enquiry by order dated 15.2.2007, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Vaishali at Hajipur dismissed the complaint case i.e. Case No.C1502 of 2006/Tr.2004 of 2006. While assailing both the orders, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate has committed serious error. 3. While passing the impugned order, it was submitted that once an enquiry was commenced in a complaint petition, the learned Magistrate was required only to peruse the materials collected during the enquiry. He was not at all authorized to examine police report. However, the learned Magistrate, while passing order dated 15.2.2007, has examined the police report also and on this ground alone, the order is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the learned Sessions Judge, only on the ground that dispute was civil in nature, has not interfered with the impugned order. 4. However, the learned Magistrate, while passing order dated 15.2.2007, has examined the police report also and on this ground alone, the order is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the learned Sessions Judge, only on the ground that dispute was civil in nature, has not interfered with the impugned order. 4. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a single Bench judgment of this Court reported in PLJR 2009(2)740 (Shivpujan Yadav Vs. State of Bihar & others). Referring to aforesaid judgment, it was submitted that the learned Magistrate was required to examine only those materials which were collected during the enquiry. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It was submitted that it is true that the learned Magistrate, in the first paragraph, has mentioned regarding perusal of the number of documents including police report, but fact remains that the learned Magistrate, while passing the impugned order, had discussed all materials, which were collected during enquiry and the learned Magistrate was fully satisfied that no offence was made out and assigning a detailed reason had rejected the complaint petition. The allegation, prima facie, was in relation to sale deed, which was executed long back in the years 1972 and 1975 and after lapse of such a long period, the complainant had come out with a case that his father had never executed such sale deed. It was further submitted that all those steps were taken by the complainant after the death of the executants of sale deed, which was executed in the years 1972 and 1975. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the materials available on record. It is true that at the time of enquiry, the learned Magistrate was required to examine only materials collected during enquiry and he was not entitled to examine police report, but after perusing the impugned order, the court is satisfied that the basis for rejection of the complaint petition was not the police report, but the learned Magistrate had discussed evidences which were brought during enquiry. Moreover, the order of rejection of the complaint petition was assailed before the revisional court. Once revision petition was rejected, the petitioner, in ordinary course, was not entitled to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, the order of rejection of the complaint petition was assailed before the revisional court. Once revision petition was rejected, the petitioner, in ordinary course, was not entitled to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 397(3) prohibits second revision and in the garb of a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner may not be allowed to file second revision. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances, particularly the allegations, which were discussed by the learned Magistrate, the court is satisfied that either of the orders passed by the court below requires no interference. The petition stands dismissed. ?