Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jharkhand High Court

Basuki Nath Gupta vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 28 June, 2012

Author: H.C.Mishra

Bench: H.C.Mishra

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                    W.P (Cr.) No. 406 of 2009
                                          -------
                     Basuki Nath Gupta                        ....... Petitioner

                                             -Versus-
                    The State of Jharkhand & Anr.                ....... Respondents

                                             ------
                    CORAM :        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA
                                              ------
                    For the Petitioner      :        Mr.K.P.Deo, Advocate.
                    For the respondents     :        Mr.R.N.Roy, G.P.-III
                                                     Mr.M.Jalisur Rahman, J.C to G.P. III

                                                 ------

6/ 28.6.2012

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The complainant respondent No.2 has not appeared, even though, the notice was validly served upon her.

2. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.7.2009 passed by Shri Manish, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Godda, in P.C.R Case No. 30 of 2007 / T.R No.1136 of 2009, whereby, the learned Court below has found sufficient material to proceed against the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 344 of the I.P.C., only in view of the order dated 24.6.2009 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda, in Criminal Revision No.94 of 2007 / 11 of 2009.

3. The relevant facts for adjudication of this case lie in a very short compass. The complaint petition was filed by the complainant respondent No.2 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda, which was registered as P.C.R Case No. 30 of 2007. In the said complaint case, the petitioner was made an accused for the alleged offence under Sections 364, 368, 120-B of the I.P.C. The enquiry was made by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Godda, in the said P.C.R Case No.30 of 2007 and upon enquiry, the said complaint petition was dismissed by the Court below vide the detailed order dated 5.9.2007, which has been brought on record as Annexure 3 / 4 to this application. It appears that against the said order, the complainant filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, Godda, which was numbered as Criminal Revision No. 94 of 2007 / 11 of 2009. In the said revision, the petitioner was not made a party. The said revision was heard by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda and the order dated 5.9.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st class, Godda, in P.C.R Case No. 30 of 2007 was set aside. The revisional Court held that there were prima facie materials available on the record to proceed with the case and the Court below was directed to proceed in accordance with law, in view of the direction given by the revisional Court. Pursuant thereto, the Court below by the impugned order dated 30.7.2009 passed in the said P.C.R. Case No.30 of 2007 has found the sufficient material against the petitioner for the offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C., only in view of the findings given by the Revisional Court, and has ordered for issuance of process against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 30.7.2009 passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, the same is passed only in view of the order passed by the revisional Court in Criminal Revision No. 94 of 2007/ 11 of 2009, in which, the petitioner was neither made a party nor he was noticed and heard. Learned counsel, accordingly, submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Learned counsel also submitted that even the order passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda, in Criminal Revision No.94 of 2007/ 11 of 2009 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer of the petitioner.

6. I have gone through the record, including the order passed by the revisional Court below. The revisional Court below has given a definite finding that there were prima facie materials available on the record to proceed with the case and the Court below was directed to proceed in accordance with law, in view of the direction given by the revisional Court. In my considered view the revisional Court could not have imposed its own findings on the Magistrate making an enquiry in the complaint, directing the magistrate to proceed in view of the revisional Court's finding that there were prima facie materials available on the record to proceed with the case. The revisional Court could have only set aside the Order passed by the Magistrate directing him to pass fresh order in accordance with law.

7. In that view of the matter, the order dated 24.6.2009 passed by the Revisional Court in Cr.Revision No. 94 of 2007 /11 of 2009 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Similarly, the impugned order dated 30.7.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in P.C.R. Case No. 30 of 2007, which has been passed solely on the basis of the findings arrived at by the Revisional Court, also cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

8. In view of the aforementioned discussions, the order dated 20.4.2009 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda, in Cr.Revision No.94 of 2007 / 11 of 2009 as contained in Annexure 4/ 1 to this writ application, as also the order dated 30.7.2009 passed by Shri Manish, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st class, Godda, in T.R No.1136 of 2009 / P.C.R Case No.30 of 2007 are, hereby, quashed. This application is, accordingly, allowed.

(H.C.Mishra, J.) B.S/