DHANANJAY PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the course of hearing, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has produced certified copy of the order dated 27.3.2000 passed in Complaint Case No.245 of 2000. Let it be kept on record.

(2.) The sole petitioner, who was complainant before the court below, has approached this Court , while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , with a prayer to quash the order dated 3.7.2000 passed by Sri R.K.Mishra, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in Case No. 245 ( C) of 2000. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the complaint i.e. Complaint Case No.245(C) of 2000 under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the order dated 21.9.2000 passed in Cr.Revision No. 259 of 2000 by 7th Addl.Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, which was preferred against the order of rejection of complaint petition by the petitioner.

(3.) Short fact of the case is that the petitioner had filed a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.245(C) of 2000 against Opp.Party nos. 2 to 11 on an allegation that the accused persons had committed offences under Sections 147,148,149, 395 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. It was alleged in the complaint petition that on 21.3.2000 the complainant had gone to Sonbarsa to the house of her aunt, namely, Deorati Devi, who was recently murdered. It was alleged that on 21.3.2000 in the night at about 10 O Clock all the accused persons variously armed came to the house of his Aunt. When the complainant raised objection, accused persons put pistol on his chest and by putting the petitioner in fear, accused persons looted articles from the house of his aunt at Sonbarsa. After filing of the complaint petition, the learned Magistrate vide its order dated 27.3.2000 referred the complaint petition to the Dy.Superintendent of Police , Sasaram to investigate /inquire under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed him to submit report by 27.4.2000. After the order of the learned Magistrate, the Superintendent of Police started enquiring the matter. While the Dy.Superintendent of Police was conducting enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he directed the Officer Incharge of Sheosagar Police Station to institute an F.I.R. and also directed for arresting the accused persons, seizure of licensed gun of Ganga Dayal Pandey ( Opp.Party no.2 of the present case). After noticing the fact that the Dy.Superintendent of Police was transgressing his jurisdiction, the accused persons filed a petition before the learned Magistrate only on the point that the Dy.Superintendent of Police was directed to conduct enquiry and not to direct for registering F.I.R. Thereafter, a report was submitted by the Dy.Superintendent of Police. The learned Magistrate by its order dated 27.04.2000 by assigning a detailed reason refused to accept the report of the Dy.Superintendent of Police. It was considered by the learned Magistrate that the Dy. Superintendent of Police had completely transgressed his jurisdiction in directing for registering F.I.R. Differing with the report of the Dy.Superintendent of Police, the learned Magistrate directed the Probation Officer to conduct an enquiry and report the same by its order dated 27.4.2000 ( Annexure-2 to the present petition). After conducting enquiry, the learned Probation Officer found the entire allegation of the complainant as false, malicious and concocted. After receipt of the report of the Probation Officer, the complainant approached the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence or send the case to any Magistrate. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by its order dated 3.7.2000 agreeing with the recommendation of the Probation Officer rejected the complaint petition. Learned Magistrate had accepted the enquiry report submitted by the Probation Officer.