D.K. Sinha, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of P.C.R. Case No. 131 of 1999 as well as the orders dated 2.7.2004 and 12.10.2004 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate found a prima facie case against the Petitioner under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and directed summons to be issued against the Petitioner.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel submitted that complaint was filed by the complainant Biswajit Rai i.e. opposite party No. 2 herein stating therein that one Bhikhari Lal with the help of his associates had forcibly harvested paddy crops from the field having an area of 2 bighas and 10 kathas, to which the police was informed. Pursuant to such information, police came and seized the paddy from the possession of Bhikhari Lal and his associates and the same was entrusted to the Petitioner for its safe custody. Allegation of the complainant -opposite party No. 2 was that in spite of his demand, the paddy, which was seized and entrusted to the Petitioner, was not returned to him. In this connection, a legal notice was also issued and in that manner, he filed a complaint for the offence under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Counsel pointed out that it would be evident from perusal of Annexure -2, which is the undertaking given by the Petitioner herein, that he had received about 30 mounds of paddy on entrustment and expressed his readiness and willingness to return the paddy whenever the paddy would be required or he would deposit the cost of 30 mounds of paddy. Admittedly, the paddy was entrusted by the police and it was nowhere stated that police had asked him to return the paddy to the complainant, though the Petitioner had expressed his willingness. After filing of the P.C.R. Case No. 131 of 1999 by the complainant Biswajit Rai and recording the statement of the witnesses on inquiry, the learned Judicial Magistrate did not find a prima facie case against the Petitioner so as to issue notice upon the Petitioner and hence, the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Against the impugned order dated 14.12.2000, complainant preferred a criminal revision and it would be evident from the subsequent order dated 2.7.2004 that criminal revision was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, who remanded back the matter for reconsideration after setting aside the earlier order by which the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel further pointed out that Sri R. Srivastav, Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara without application of judicial mind simply stated that he found a prima facie case under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioner, though in his earlier order he has dismissed the complaint and no fresh evidence was adduced on behalf of the complainant so as to change his view, therefore, the order impugned dated 2.7.2004 shall be deemed that it was recorded without application of judicial mind rather in mechanical exercise which cannot be sustained under law.;