Decided on August 18,1983



- (1.) FOR violation of an order under section 144 Cr. P. C. a complaint was filed under section 188 I. P. C. against the three accused opposite parties by the Executive Magistrate, Sealdah, who had passed the order. The learned Additional chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah took cognizance upon the said complaint and issued process against the accused. After the accused entered appearance the case was transferred to the learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Sealdah for disposal. Against the initiation of the prosecution, one of the accused namely, Ramendra Nath Das, moved this court by filing a revisional application and obtained a Rule which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 1592 of 1981. The said Rule came up for hearing before a learned Judge of this Court on january 18, 1982 when nobody was present 'on behalf of the petitioner in that rule. While disposing of the Rule, the learned Judge observed, inter alia, as under : "i have perused the application and the petition of complaint and see no prima facie ground for interfering with the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The application is, therefore, rejected and the Rule is discharged. "
(2.) AFTER the matter went back, an application was filed on behalf of the accused persons on March 29, 1982 praying for an order of acquittal on the ground that the complaint was not maintainable in law. The learned Magistrate heard the parties on the application and by an order dated August 11, 1982 dropped the proceeding and released the accused from their bailbonds. Aggrieved by the said order, this Revisional application was filed by Sandip Kumar Ghosh, who was the petitioner in the proceeding under section 144 Cr. P. C. and on that application the present Rule Nisi was issued.
(3.) AT the time of hearing a question was raised as to the maintainability of the application at the instance of the petitioner as he was not, nor could he be, a party in a case under section 188 i. P. C. It is true that in a proceeding under section 188 I. P. C. the complainant is the public servant whose order is violated and consequently a party at whose instance initially the proceeding under section 144 Cr. P. C. was initiated cannot file this revisional application. But then, when a Rule has been issued on such an application and when the records are before it, this Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, may make any order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Judged in that context, I find that this is a fit case where this Court should exercise its inherent powers under section 482 Cr. P. C. I, therefore, proceed to consider the merits of the case.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.