Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 146 (PAT)

Kamini Kumari v. State of Bihar

2014-01-29

RAKESH KUMAR

body2014
Order Heard Sri Harendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel who has appeared on behalf of opp. party nos. 2 to 5. 2. The petitioner, who is informant in Dumra P.S. Case No. 183 of 2005, has approached this Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”), with a prayer to quash an order dated 25-05-2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi (for short “Magistrate”), whereby learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that instead of taking cognizance on the basis of materials on record for the offences under Sections 354 & 323 of the IPC, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance only under Section 504 of the IPC. 4. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of an order dated 12-08-2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sitamarhi (for short “Trying Magistrate”), whereby, learned Trying Magistrate has rejected the petition dated 09-04-2009 filed by the petitioner for amendment of charge. The order dated 12-08-2010 was affirmed by the Revisional Court i.e. learned District & Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Cr. Revision No. 147 of 2010 on 25-10-2010, which was preferred by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the case diary, there was sufficient materials for submitting chargesheet under Sections 354 & 323 of the IPC, but the police had submitted chargesheet only under Section 504 of the IPC and during the trial, while the petitioner had filed petition for amendment of charge, it has been rejected in a mechanical manner. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opp. party nos. 2 to 5/accused have opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that order of cognizance in the case was passed long back on the basis of chargesheet, which was submitted under Section 504 of the IPC only. He further submits that the petition for amendment of charge was filed in the year 2009 only with a view to delay conclusion of the trial. Earlier a representation was filed and the revisional court had directed the prosecution to produce witnesses regularly, however; continuously on four dates, no witness was produced. He further submits that the petition for amendment of charge was filed in the year 2009 only with a view to delay conclusion of the trial. Earlier a representation was filed and the revisional court had directed the prosecution to produce witnesses regularly, however; continuously on four dates, no witness was produced. Thereafter, petition, filed in the year 2009, was pressed in the year 2010, which has been rejected. 7. After going through the materials available on record, particularly; the fact that order of rejection of petition for amending the charge has already been affirmed by the revisional court, while exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., it is not desirable to interfere with the same. Moreover, it appears that present petition has been filed in the garb of section 482 of the Cr.P.C., whereas second revision is barred under Section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C. 8. I do not find any defect. 9. The petition stands dismissed.