MD JAMALUDDIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has mainly prayed for quashing of the order dated 15.11.1997 passed in Complaint Case No. 592 of 1997. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Purnea had dismissed the complaint petition on the ground that no prima facie case was made out. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 24.8.1998 whereby Cr. Revision No. 526 of 1997, which was preferred by this petitioner against the order dated 15.11.1997, was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order whereby learned Magistrate had rejected the complaint petition is apparently incorrect in view of the fact that in the complaint petition as well as deposition of witnesses with some documents it was clear cut case of commission of offences under Sections 420, 418 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party No. 2, who was arrayed as accused in the complaint petition, had cheated the petitioner by way of executing a registered deed in the year 1997 for such land which were already sold by him in the year 1994. He further submits that during the enquiry, he had produced photo copy of certified copy of both sale deeds i.e. sale deed executed in the year 1994 and 1997. He further submits that the opposite party No. 2 on false representation persuaded the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 9,000/- to him and, accordingly, the petitioner was cheated. He submits that though there was no requirement to examine all the witnesses before cognizance, the learned Magistrate, while rejecting the complaint petition, had observed that all the witnesses were not examined by the petitioner and as such the court below had illegally rejected the complaint petition.

(2.) I have also heard Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, who appears on behalf of the State. In the case, the offence was alleged to have been committed sometime in the May, 1997 and thereafter, the impugned order was passed by learned Magistrate on 15.11.1997. The petitioner thereafter, filed a revision petition vide Cr. Revision No. 526 of 1997, which too, was rejected by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea by its order dated 24.8.1998. The court is aware about its limitation while exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. In this case, after the rejection of the revision petition, it would be difficult for this Court to further entertain the grievance of the petitioner, that too, after expiry of a period of more than 12 years from the date of occurrence and as such after expiry of such a long period, it would not be proper to direct the opposite party to participate in a proceeding for an offence, whether it was committed or not, said to have been committed in the month of May, 1997.