Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. - (1.) Challenging the legal pregnability of the order dated 16th January, 2017, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Purulia, (by which the application of the petitioner filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. in Session Case No. 138 of 2016 was rejected) and being aggrieved at it, the petitioners filed this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the same and also prayed for quashing of the proceedings. Both these revisional applications have been taken up together, being arose from the same order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
(2.) According to the petitioner, one Acharya Sarveshvarananda Avdhuta belonging to their rival group i.e. Ranchi Administration, lodged a written complaint with the officer-in-charge Jaipur Police Station contending inter alia that the present petitioners and others being armed with lathi, tangi, iron-rods etc. went to A.M.I.T. Hostel and attacked the present private opposite party and assaulted them. Members of both the groups suffered injuries and members of Ranchi group were admitted to Pundag local hospital. Thereafter the injured persons were referred to Ranchi hospital and one Acharya Abhipremananda succumbed to his injuries on the way to Ranchi Hospital. The said complaint was not initially accepted but however it was sent by post and Jaipur P.S. case was started. The learned Magistrate framed the charges against the persons of Ranchi group under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 506 and 379 of I.P.C who had given statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Against eight persons, over the self-same issue, another criminal case was lodged on the basis of an information of one Acharya Bimuktananda Avadhuta and the same is registered under Section 147, 149, 341, 323, 326 of I.P.C. According to the present petitioners, at the relevant point of time, they were not present at the place of occurrence and all of them were out of station on various grounds. In support of their such contention they have produced air tickets, train tickets and some letters which disclosed that at that time they were not on the spot. However during the pendency of the case and after the charge-sheet has been submitted, the de-facto complainant moved an application before the Judicial Magistrate alongwith certain affidavits, challenged the prayer for discharge by the investigating agency. On the basis of the said affidavits, the learned S.D.J.M. Purulia was pleased to issue process against the present petitioners and ultimately issued warrant of arrest against them. Challenging that part, a revisional application bearing no. C.R.R. 368 of 2005 was filed before the High Court and the co-ordinate bench held that the learned Magistrate was empowered to issue process against the petitioners though not named in the charge-sheet. According to them, in the said order the co-ordinate bench did not mention reasons and failed to take into account the legal intricacies, that after taking cognizance whether the same can be taken into account and that too without giving any order of further enquiry to see if reinclusion is possible or not. In course of hearing, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners contended that against the order of the coordinate bench of this High Court they have moved an S.L.P before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the said S.L.P. was dismissed without assigning any reason.
(3.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that order impugned passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge does not call for any interference.;