HEM CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision application has been preferred against the order dated 25.2.1999 passed by Shri R.S. Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in Complaint Case No. 260 of 1992, whereby he rejected the petition filed by the complainant wherein it was prayed that before hearing on the point of sanction under Section 197 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) as per the order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court, the appearance of all the accused is necessary. As such, the complainant prayed that process may be issued against the absentee-accused who have either not appeared at all or failed to appear in the Court as per the direction given by the learned Sessions Judge while granting bail to the five accused-persons. It was also contended that the prosecution may be granted two weeks' time to file rejoinder to the petition filed on behalf of the defence only after the appearance of the two absentee-accused.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, on 9.9.1992, which was transferred for enquiry under Section 192 of the Code to the Court of Shri J.S.P. Choudhary, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, against which the opposite parties filed an application before this Court vide Cri. Misc. 5057 of 1992 (R) for quashing the entire criminal proceedings, which was dismissed on 19.8.1993 (Annexure-2). The opposite parties No. 2 to 8 filed S.L.P. (Cri) No. 279 of 1994 before the Hon ble Supreme Court, which was disposed of by the order dated 21.9.1995 and the enquiry proceeded. The learned Magistrate found in course of enquiry that a prima facie, case under Sections 147, 448, 342, 427, 506, 380 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code has been made out against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 8 and, so, by order dated 20.9.1996 issued summons against them. The opposite parties challenged the said order dated 20.9.1996 passed by the learned Magistrate which was dismissed by this Court in Cri. Misc. No. 5937 of 1996 (R) and in Cri. Misc. No. 6639 of 1996 (R) (Annexure-5). The opposite parties, thereafter, preferred S.L.P. (Cri.) Nos. 3908 and 3909 of 1997, before the Hon ble Supreme Court against the order passed by this Court in Cri. Misc. No. 5937 of 1994 (R) and in Cri. Misc. No. 6639 of 1996 (R), which was disposed of by the apex Court after setting aside the order passed by this Court with the following observations:

(3.) The said orders of the apex Court was received by the learned Magistrate on 31.10.1998 and the learned Magistrate directed the office to inform the lawyers of the accused-persons for producing relevant documentary materials on the date fixed. Accordingly, documents were filed on behalf of the defence on 30.11.1998 which were kept on record. On 30.1.1999, the complainant appeared and filed a petition to adjourn the hearing on the petition dated 30.11.1998 filed by the defence on the ground that he has to file a reply to the aforesaid petition. The learned Magistrate, however, heard the counsel in part on the petition dated 30.11.1998 and with the consent of both the parties, the case was adjourned to 6.2.1999 for further hearing. On 6.2.1999 the complainant filed a rejoinder to the petition dated 30.11.1998 on which the learned Court below heard the matter on 20.2.1999 and fixed the matter for orders on 25.2.1999. On 25.2.1999 the learned Magistrate rejected the petition filed on behalf of the complainant and directed him to come prepared on 16.3.1999 for hearing on the petition filed by the defence along with the documentary filed therewith. In his petition dated 6.2.1999, the complainant had raised objection that all the accused should first of all appear before the Court and then only the matter can be heard on the petition dated 30.11.1998 filed by the defence, which was rejected.