Jharkhand High Court
Bhawani Goswami vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr. on 10 March, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P.No.1166 of 2006
Bhawani Goswami. ... ... ... ...Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Pankaj Kejriwal. ... ... ... ...Opp. Parties
-------------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K.SINHA
For the Petitioner: Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharti, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. M.A.Khan, A.P.P.
-------------
08/ 10.03.2011By the order dated 10.02.2011, the status report of Complaint Case No.22 of 2005 was called for from the Court of Shri Piyush Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi and his report dated 21.02.2011 is on the record. The learned Magistrate has reported that the Complaint Case No.22 of 2005 was fixed on 05.03.2011 for orders on the petition filed on behalf of the accused for his discharge under Section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and this Court has reason to believe that the charge was not framed by that time though the complaint was filed some six years ago in the year 2005 and no stay was granted to stop further proceeding in Complaint Case No.22 of 2005. By the order dated 09.03.2006 recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate summons were directed to be issued against the petitioner to face further evidence before charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and under Section 406 Indian Penal Code, thereafter, several dates were fixed for evidence before charge. The learned Judicial Magistrate has given various dates in his status report when the accused did not appear. He further explained that the accused went on obtaining adjournments only on the ground that he had preferred Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1166 of 2006 before this Court for the quashment of the cognizance order and hence no charge could be framed and finally it was stated that when the date was fixed on 12.11.2009 for framing of charge the accused petitioner filed a petition under Section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and till 4.3.2010 the case was pending for filing rejoinder on behalf of the complainant. The Magistrate has stated that he had joined as Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi on 24.05.2010 but he could not frame charge against the accused for the reasons stated.
From perusal of the entire explanation and the status report, I find that the learned Judicial Magistrate Shri Piyush Srivastava and his predecessor in Court had acted very casually without showing their commitment to the cause of quick justice since charge could not be framed within span of six years in a complaint case, when there was no stay of further proceeding in Complaint Case No.22 of 2005 recorded by this Court in Cr.M.P.No.1166 of 2006. The Officer is, therefore, cautioned to be careful in future and is expected to do his assigned Judicial Work diligently and promptly.
Learned Counsel Mr. Ananda Sen is directed to apprise this Court on the next date as to the status of the case with regard to framing of charge against the accused.
Put up this Petition on 23.03.2011.
[D.K.Sinha,J.] P.K.S.