JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWALLA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been filed against the order dated 13-12-1996 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in C.P. Case No. 831 of 1992, whereby and whereunder he took cognizance against the petitioner under Ss. 302/307/114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) For better appreciation some of the relevant facts concerning this application may be stated in brief. On 16-2-1992 a case under Ss. 302/307/114/34 of the Indian Penal Code readwith S. 27 of the Arms Act was registered at Dhanbad (Saraidhella) police station No. 117 of 1992 against the petitioner and three unknown persons on the basis of the statements of Sunit Kumar Roy Choudhary alias Sunit Roy Choudhary and after investigation the police submitted final form in the case on 22-6-1992, in which the accusations against the petitioner and one Indra Mohan Lal were found to be false. Before acceptance of final form a protest petition in the form of complaint was filed by the informant/complainant against the petitioner and Indra Mohan Lal alleging therein that the I.O. did not investigate the case in proper manner and never came to record the statements of the witnesses and the accused persons were seen moving with I.O. and high officials of the police Department and, therefore, the informant/complainant entertained a reasonable belief that the police has been gainedover by the accused persons and final report has been submitted by the police to save the accused persons and prayer was made that congnizance may be taken against the accused persons under Ss. 302/307/114/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with S. 27 of the Arms Act.

(3.) The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, heard the informant/complainant and the accused persons as well as the A.P.P. on the final form submitted by the police as well as the protest cum complaint petition which was filed by the informant/complainant together and by his detailed order dated 19-12-1992 accepted the final form submitted by the police as there was no material in the case diary to proceed against the petitioner and one Lal Saheb, but in the same order while considering the protest-cum-complaint petition filed by the informant he held that the protest petition should be treated as complaint and directed the complainant to appear in his Court for his examination on S.A. and the examination of the witnesses and fixed the date on 6-1-1993 for the said purpose.