H.C. Mishra, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.2.2012 passed by Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh No. 1, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro, in C.P. Case No. 188 of 2007, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., for issuing summons to the other accused persons named by the witnesses, who were examined before charge, has been rejected by the Court below.
(2.) IT appears that the complaint petition was filed by the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, which was registered as C.P. Case No. 188 of 2007, in which only two persons, viz., one Chimanlal Agrawal and Shiv Narayan Prasad, were made accused. The said complaint petition shows that there is dispute between the parties for a wall of a shop and that there mention about an earlier occurrence, wherein there is allegation against the accused No. 2 Shiv Narayan Prasad and his sons of making abuses and assaults, for which a separate information was already given before the police. So far as the complaint in question is concerned, even though there is mention about that earlier alleged occurrence in the complaint petition, the same was filed only against two accused persons with regard to dispute of the wall of the shop and the sons of accused No. 2 Shiv Narayan Prasad were not made accused in the complaint case. It appears from the impugned order that the cognizance was taken for the offence under Section 418 of the IPC only, against one of the accused namely, Chimanlal Agrawal. Subsequently, some witnesses were examined before charge and it appears that the said Chimanlal Agrawal died in the mean time and his name was dropped from the complaint petition. Cognizance was not taken by the Court against Shiv Narayan Prasad and the application was filed by the complainant -petitioner that in the evidence, the witnesses had said that Shiv Narayan Prasad and his sons had made the assaults and accordingly, they should be summoned for facing the trial. The Court below, by order dated 29.2.2012, has rejected the application filed by the complainant -petitioner stating that there is no allegation of any over act in the evidence adduced by the complainant against those persons and accordingly, the application filed under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., was dismissed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court towards the statement of the witnesses recorded before charge, wherein there is allegation against Shiv Narayan Prasad and his sons of making abuses and assaults, which appears to be the occurrence for which the information was given to the police, as stated in the complaint petition itself, and still the sons of accused No. 2 Shiv Narayan Prasad were not made accused in the complaint case. The Court below has specifically stated in the order that it has gone through the evidence on record and found that there is no specific allegation of overt act against the any of the proposed accused persons. From the record, I find that this application is filed only in order to harass the opposite parties and the same has been rightly rejected by the Court below. Thus, I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly, dismissed.;