THENGU SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four Petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 8-9-2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah in Cri. Revision No. 154 of 2003. By the said order revision preferred by the Petitioners against the order of cognizance dated 2-6-2003 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Arrah in Complaint Case No. 241 (C) of 2002/Tr. No. 1222 of 2003 arising out of Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 182 of 2001 was rejected.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that the opposite party No. 2 had filed a written report before the Officer-in-charge, Jagdishpur Police Station, disclosing therein that on 17-9-2001 in the night at 12.00, the Petitioner No. 1 Thengu Singh had looted certain articles like Battery of the Tractor of the informant, Dynamo etc. from the vehicle of the informant. The reason of commission of such occurrence was mentioned that a case was going on in between the informant and Petitioner No. 1 and on the date of filing of the FIR, date was fixed for examination of witness. With a view to frighten the complainant from not producing any witnesses, the accused-Petitioner No. 1 had committed the said occurrence. On the basis of said written report, an FIR vide Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 182 of 2001 was registered on 18-9-2001 for the offence under Sections 379 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. While investigation was going on, the informant filed a protest petition. However, after conducting thorough investigation, police submitted final form on 29-10-2001 indicating therein that allegation made in the FIR was false and concocted. While filing final report, the Investigating Officer also suggested for prosecuting the opposite party No. 2-informant for offence under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. Besides filing final form, the police also filed a prosecution report, a copy of the same has been brought on record as Annexure-3 to the petition. By the said prosecution report, it was prayed to prosecute the opposite party No. 2-informant for offence under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the protest petition was treated as complaint. However, it was rejected on 30-5-2002. Against the order of rejection of complaint petition, the opposite party No. 2 had preferred a revision vide Cri. Revision No. 42 of 2003. However, in the meantime, on the basis of prosecution, report. Shri A.K. Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate, Arah, by its order dated 8-7-2002 passed in Tr. No. 1222 of 2003 in Complaint Case No. 241 of 2002. took cognizance of offence under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code against the opposite party No. 2 and directed for issuance of summon. The revision, which was preferred by opposite party No. 2-infor-mant against the rejection of his complaint petition, was allowed on 5-4-2003 i.e. An-nexure-6 to the petition and thereafter, by the impugned order i.e. order dated 2-6-2003, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 341, 379 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons.

(3.) Aggrieved with the order of cognizance dated 2-6-2003, the Petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition, which was admitted on 1-7-2004. While admitting, notice was directed to be issued. In the meantime, it was directed that further proceedings in Complaint Case No. 241(C) of 2002/Tr. No. 1222 of 2003 pending in the Court of Shri A.K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate shall remain stayed. The order of stay is still continuing. Despite the fact that opposite party No. 2 has entered his appearance through advocate, at the time of hearing, none has appeared on his behalf.