BHUP NARAYAN JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(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 an order dated 7.7.2001 in Complaint Case No. 935 (C) of 1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the petition for discharge filed on behalf of the petitioner.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 935(C) of 1999 against the petitioner and one another on an allegation of commission of offences under Sections 144, 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged by the complainant that the accused persons including the petitioner had looted crops of the complainant by putting the complainant in fear. At the time of occurrence, it was alleged that the accused persons had also shown pistol to the complainant. After filing of the complaint and conducting enquiry, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of offence under Sections 144 and 379 of the Indian Penal code. Against the order of cognizance, the petitioner and others preferred a revision vide Cr. Revision No. 121 of 2000 before the court of learned Sessions Judge. However, no favourable order was passed in the revision petition and on 29.5.2000, the revision petition was disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge with a liberty to the revisionist to argue at the time of charge. At the stage of charge, the petitioner filed petition for discharge along with number of documents. However, the learned Magistrate, by assigning a detailed reason by its order dated 7.7.2001, has rejected the discharge petition.

(3.) Aggrieved with the order dated 7.7.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, whereby discharge petition was rejected, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition, which was admitted on 10.9.2004 and stay order was passed. Despite valid service of notice, opposite party No. 2 has not preferred to appear in the present case.