- (1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 09.04.2009 passed in Criminal Revision No. 03/2009 whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Godda has set aside the Order dated 03.12.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Godda in P.C.R. No. 176/2008 (T.R. No. 1371/2008) and observed in para -5 as follows: - "5. After going through the statements on S.A. of the complainant and the statements of the witnesses of the prosecution it appears that the materials in record suggests that an offence punishable under Sections 376/511 I.P.C. is made out. Hence, the impugned order in which the learned Magistrate has observed that primafacie case only for the offence punishable under Section 354, I.P.C. is made out, is indefensible in the facts and circumstances of' the case. Hence, the same is set aside. The learned Court below is directed to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders in the light of the observations made by this Court. In the result, the revision is allowed." The petitioner has also challenged the legality of the order dated 29.04.2009 passed by the learned Magistrate in said P.C.R. Case No. 176/2008 in pursuant to the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 03/2009 because the learned Magistrate without applying judicial mind has followed the directions and issued process against the petitioner directing him to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. It is made clear that the petitioner has prayed to quash order dated 09.04.2009 passed in Criminal Revision No. 03/2009 and order dated 29.04.2009 passed in P.C.R. No. 176/2008.
(2.) THE prosecution case as made out by the complainant in P.C.R. No. 176/2008 is that on 27.03.2008 the petitioner Naseem Ansari in a drunken state, committed house trespass and tried to outrage the modesty of complainant/opposite party No.2, Sahnaj Begam (hereinafter referred to as the complainant). In course of making such attempt, lace of lower garments of the complainant was pulled by the petitioner. In order to make her protest effective she also caught hold baithi (sharp cutting instrument used for cutting vegetables) but she sustained injury on her finger when the petitioner tried to snatch it. When the petitioner could not succeed, he snatched away golden chain and fled away from the place. The matter was reported by the complainant to her parent whereafter a complaint as mentioned above was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda who transferred the same to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, who after holding inquiry under Section 202. Cr P.C., vide order dated 03.12.2008 directed to issue process against the petitioner to face trial under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant, on being dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 03.12.2008 passed in P.C.R. Case No.176/2008, preferred Criminal Revision No. 03/2009 before the learned Sessions Judge and succeeded to get an observation that offence punishable under Sections 376/ 511 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and the impugned order dated 03.12.2008 passed in P.C.R. Case No. 176/2008 stood set aside. The learned Magistrate in receipt of the Order dated 09.04.2009, passed in Criminal Revision No. 03/2009 passed an order on 29.04.2099, which reads as follows: - "29.04.2009 the complainant is on attendance. Accused is absent. The Case is fixed for order in light of the observations and directions of Ld. District and Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision 3109 dated 09.04.2009. Ld. District and Sessions Judge has been pleased to observe that on the basis of material on record offence punishable under Sections 376/511 of Cr P.C. is made out as such the order of this Court to proceed further and issue process under Section 354 of I.P.C. stands set aside. This Court has been directed to pass appropriate order accordingly. Thus in light of the facts and circumstances available on record and also in view of the observations made by Ld. District and Sessions Judge there are sufficient material on record to proceed further and issue process against accused Naseem Ansari under Sections 376/511 of Cr P.C. Since the accused is absent, issue N.B.W. For his appearance on 30.05.09."
(3.) IT is submitted that purpose of holding inquiry under Section 202. Cr. P.C. is restricted to the extent if there is no sufficient ground for proceeding the complaint shall be dismissed for which reasons in brief is required to be recorded or if in the opinion of Magistrate there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Court shall issue process. In the circumstances where the process has ordered to be issued against the accused to face trial under Section 204 Cr. P.C. the case will proceed further in accordance with law and in such situation the complainant is not at all aggrieved. It is also pointed out that the purpose of holding inquiry under Section 202 Cr. P.C. comes to an end as soon as order under Section 203. Cr. P.C. or order under Section 204 Cr. P.C. is passed. If the complaint stands dismissed the complainant shall be at liberty to take recourse to revisional jurisdiction of the Appellate Court and in the same manner if the accused finds himself aggrieved with the order passed under Section 204 Cr. P.C. he shall be at liberty to file revision or quashing petition against issuance of process before the Appellate Court.;