- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State.
(2.) NO one appears on behalf of the complainant- Opp. Party No. 2 in spite of repeated calls. It appears that on earlier occasion also, no one had appeared on behalf of the complainant and the case was adjourned in order to give a chance to the counsel of the complainant Opp. Party No. 2. In spite of repeated calls today also, no one has appeared on behalf of the complainant Opp. Party No. 2. The petitioner, Sunil Kapur is aggrieved by the order dated 5.6.07 passed by Sri A. K. Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Koderma, in complaint case No. 382 of 2004, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner for discharge, under Section 245 Cr.P.C., has been rejected by the Court below.
(3.) THE petitioner has been made accused along with one Amit Jaiswal and the deceased Joginder Chand Kapur in complaint case No. 382 of 2004, filed by the complaint in the Court of the Chief Juicial Magistrate, Koderma. In the complaint petition it is stated that the complainant is a partner of M/s Ramchand Jagdish Chand, having its office near Gayatri Mandir, Bye-pass Road, Jhumri Telaiya, Koderma, and on the date of occurrence, accused No. 1 Amit Jaiswal along with five unknown entered into the building and office of the firm and they took the photographs of the building and office of the complainant and removed some file containing valuable documents. Alleging criminal conspiracy against the petitioner in the said occurrence, this complaint petition has been filed for the alleged offences under Sections 448, 380, 120B IPC. It is specifically alleged that the accused Amit Jaiswal came and committed the theft of the file, which contained the valuable documents. So far as this petitioner is concerned, it is only alleged that there was connivance and conspiracy of this petitioner in the alleged crime. It appears that on the basis of the statement of the complainant recorded on the solemn affirmation, the prima facie case was found against the accused persons and the process was issued. Subsequently, three witnesses were examined by the court below before charge, and thereafter, the petitioner filed application for discharge, which was rejected by the court below.;