SURESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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, 1st 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, 1st 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.