Jharkhand High Court
Rameshwar Oraon vs State Of Jharkhand on 18 November, 2008
Equivalent citations: 2009 CRI. L. J. (NOC) 787 (JHAR.), 2009 (2) AIR JHAR R 34 (2009) 1 JCR 398 (JHA), (2009) 1 JCR 398 (JHA)
Author: Amareshwar Sahay
Bench: Amareshwar Sahay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 773 of 2003
Rameshwar Oraon..................... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors ........................ Opp. Parties
......
Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amareshwar Sahay
......
For the petitioner : Mr. A.K.Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. APP
......
10/18.11.2008Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner/complainant has challenged the order dated 22/12/2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj, dismissing the complaint case No. 701/2000 under Section 203 Cr. P.C. as well as the order dated 11/02/2003, passed by the Sessions Judge, dismissing the criminal revision no. 4/2001, which was filed against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
A complainat case was filed by the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj against the opposite party nos. 2 to 6, who were the then B.D.O., Junior Engineer, Cooperative Supervisor, Agent and Treasurer alleging therein that they defalcated the Government money amounting to Rs. 3,90,000/- by giving work of filling of road to their own men ignoring all the legal formalities and, thereby, committed the offence under Sections 147, 409, 466, 468 and 471 IPC.
After registering the complaint, the chief Judicial Magistrate, ordered enquiry to be conducted by the S.D.O., Sadar, Daltonganj to know about the truth of the allegations made by the complainant/petitioner against the accused persons. The S.D.O., reported to the Magistrate that the allegations were maliciously, untrue and baseless and as a matter of fact that Rs. 3, 60,000/- were spent for the scheme. i.e. for construction of road but the actual work was done for Rs. 3,65,000/-, i.e. more than the money spent.
The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after considering the report of the S.D.O., Sadar, dismissed the complaint holding that the complaint is baseless, vexatious and malicious and it was filed for the purpose of harassing the accused and, therefore, it was not required to be sent to the police for lodging F.I.R. nor there was any necessity to proceed further in the matter.
Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal of the complaint, the complainant, filed revisions before the Sessions Judge, which was also dismissed by the Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated 11/02/2003.
Mr. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the same points, which were raised before the Sessions Judge and submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has committed illegal in dismissing the complaint on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the S.D.O., Sadar even without examining the complainant on solemn affirmation. According to Mr. Kashyap, it was incumbent upon the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to first examine the complainant on solemn affirmation and, thereafter, he could have sent the case for enquiry to the S.D.O. He could not have sent for enquiry without examination of the complainant on solemn affirmation and, therefore, the whole procedure adopted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was illegal and on this ground alone the impugned order dismissing the complaint is liable to be set aside.
I find that the learned Sessions Judge has fully discussed the points, raised by Mr. Kashyap in his impugned order and after considering the relevant provisions, i.e. Sections 200, 202 and 203 Cr.P.C. has come to the conclusion that non-examination of the complainant on solemn affirmation was neither fatal nor illegal rather it was a curable defect if any. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that the Magistrate may, on receipt of the complaint of which he has authorized to take cognizance, postpone the issue of process against the accused persons and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other persons as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding under the provisions of Section 202 Cr4.P.C. and, therefore, if the complainant was not examined by the Magistrate, he was not precluded from getting the matter enquire or investigated into. The learned Sessions Judge has further rightly held that Section 202 Cr.P.C. lay down, i.e. after considering the statement on oath, if any, of the complainant, i.e. the statements under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and of the witnesses and the result of enquiry and investigation, if any, under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismissed the complaint. Therefore, the examination of the complainant on solemn affirmation under Section 200 Cr.P.C. or the examination of the witnesses was not must for the Chief Judicial Magistrate for dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
In such a situation, I find that the learned Courts below have not committed any illegality in dismissing the complaint case on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the S.D.O. Consequently, having found no merit, this application is dismissed.
(Amareshwar Sahay, J) RC/Mukund