- (1.) The petitioner in this application under the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., has prayed for quashing the order dated 11.02.2004 whereby the complaint petition filed by him was dismissed by the court below on the basis of some documents which the accused persons were allowed to file even at the stage of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 11.02.2004 passed by the 8th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Palamau in Criminal Revision application filed by the petitioner against the impugned order of the Judicial Magistrate whereby criminal revision application was dismissed.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order of the Magistrate as also that the Sessions Judge on the ground that the Magistrate has committed a serious error of procedural law by allowing the accused persons to appear and file documents at the stage of enquiry even without issuance of any summon against them and by relying upon such documents. Referring to the provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C., learned Counsel argues that during the enquiry proceeding under Section 202 Cr.P.c., the accused persons have no locus standi either to appear or to file any documents nor does the scope of enquiry under the said provision allow the enquiring Magistrate to refer to any such documents filed by the accused persons. Learned Counsel argues that the Magistrate, while conducting the enquiry, has to consider the averments as contained in the complaint petitioner and the statements of the complainant and his witnesses recorded on solemn affirmation and then to assess on the basis of such materials as to whether any prima facie case has been made out against the accused. Reading out the impugned order of the learned Magistrate, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that even as admitted in the impugned order, the enquiring Magistrate had allowed himself to peruse the documents filed by the accused persons on the basis of which the Magistrate had drawn an erroneous inference that the dispute between the parties relates to some official transactions between the complainant and the accused and the complaint has been filed "to take revenge from the opposite party/accused". Learned Counsel argues further that even otherwise, without affording a reasonable opportunity to rebut and explain the documents filed by the accused, the learned Magistrate could not have proceeded to refer to the same and on the basis of the contents of the said documents, to draw any adverse inference against the complainant. Such opportunity, according to the learned Counsel, could be given only after commencement of the trial when the accused would have the opportunity to confront the complainant and the witnesses with the said documents and elicit their explanation on the same. To buttress his arguments, learned Counsel would refer to and rely upon the Judgment of a Bench of this Court in the case of Birendra Singh v. State of Jharkhand,2004 1 JLJR 221.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, would argue that in course of enquiry conducted by the Magistrate under the provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C., the accused may not have any locus standi to submit any argument but the provisions do not prohibit the accused persons to participate in the enquiry proceeding.;