GAJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is directed against the order, dated 13.5.1997 passed by 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Motihari in Cr. Rev. Nos. 13/95 and 100/96 by which he has reversed the order of dismissal of complaint petition under Section 203 of the Cr PC passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Motihari. It appears that the opposite party No. 2 has filed a complaint petition against the petitioners under Sections 147, 148,149, 379 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of SDJM, Sikarahana at Motihari. It has been alleged that at the place of occurrence some land was purchased by the complainant opposite-party No. 2 and he was coming in peaceful possession of the same. The land measuring 3 Katha having khata No. 079 and khasara No. 522 situated in village Kauriya. A proceeding under Section 145, Cr PC was initiated in respect of this land in which the possession over the land in favour of his uncle (Bindeshwari Singh, P.P. No. 3) was decided. It has been stated that a civil suit was also filed by Eqwali Singh, the father of Ram Ayodhya Singh and Ramadhar Singh (both accused) which was dismissed. It has been alleged that on the date of occurrence all the persons variously armed with lathi, gun, rifle, tangi, etc. came and fell the Seasam trees of the complainant (opposite-party No. 2) valued at Rs. 12,000/-. After felling they took away the Seasom trees on their tractor. It has been stated that when the opposite-party No. 2 (complainant) and his mother went to police station to inform about the occurrence, the police refused to record their statement. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint petition before the learned SDJM Sikarahna, Motihari and he directed for inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr PC. During the inquiry the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and three witnesses were also examined on behalf of the complainant before the learned Judicial Magistrate. The learned Judicial Magistrate after examining all the witnesses produced by the complainant and after considering all the evidence brought on record, dismissed the complaint petition under Section 203, Cr PC. Against the said order, dated 13.12.1994 the complainant filed a Criminal Revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Motihari. The learned Sessions Judge by impugned order allowed the revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the learned Court below while allowing the revision application failed to take notice of the petition and affidavit filed by Sri Bindeshwari Singh the uncle of the opposite-party No. 2, who has admitted that he was the owner of the trees and no Seasom trees was cut by the accused-persons. It has been also stated that the land in question stands in the name of the uncle of the opposite-party No. 2 and opposite-party No. 2 is nephew of the opposite-party No. 3. It has been also submitted that the learned Court below while passing the impugned order has committed material irregularities which is not sustainable in eye of law.

(2.) Perused the order impugned order. It is well-settled that the learned Magistrate on receipt of a complaint has only to see that whether a prima facie case against the accused-persons is made out or not. It makes obligatory for a Magistrate to call upon the witnesses and examine them before he comes to a conclusion that a prima facie case is made out. At this stage, the complainant is not required to prove his case or file any document. The learned Magistrate while dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr PC has observed that no document has been filed. The Court below has rightly held that in course of inquiry under Section 202, Cr PC nonfiling of any document was not fatal and that was sufficient material on the record to proceed against the petitioners.

(3.) In view of above, I do not find good ground to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.