BASUDEO SINGH BYAS SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , have prayed for quashing of the order dated 13.8.1999 passed by the learned 7th Addl.Sessions Judge, Rohtas in Nasriganj ( Rajpur) P.S. Case No.36 of 1996, S.Tr. No.220 of 1999. By the said order, the learned trial Judge has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 228 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Initially on the basis of fardbeyan of Raj Kumari Devi, an F.I.R. was registered for offences under Sections 376 and other allied Sections of the Indian Penal Code. However, after investigation , police submitted chargesheet under Sections 341, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In this case after submission of the chargesheet , the learned Magistrate differing with the police report took cognizance of the offence under Section 376 and other allied Sections of the Indian Penal Code and thereafter case was committed to the court of Sessions. When the case reached to the stage of charge, a petition under Section 228(1) of the Code of Criminal was filed on behalf of the petitioners with a prayer that on the basis of materials available on the record, no offence either under Section 376 or 379 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and a prayer was made to remit back the case to the court of Magistrate for trial since it was not a case triable by the court of Sessions. The learned Addl.Sessions Judge by its impugned order dated 13.8.1999 assigning a detailed reason and after examining the materials has rejected the petition filed under Section 228 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order dated 13.8.1999 the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition. Surprisingly, in the petition except the impugned order nothing was brought on the record. Neither order of cognizance nor F.I.R. was brought on the record. However, by order dated 28.2.2000 lower court record was called for, which has been received in the present case. Subsequently by order dated 19.7.2000, this application was admitted for hearing and while admitting the case for hearing, this Court had directed that during the pendency of this case, further proceeding in the court below shall remain stayed.