MEENA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 4.6.1999 passed by Sri P.H. Ram, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Purnea in G.R. No. 3013 of 1994 arising out of Barhara P.S. Case No. 68 of 1994. By the said order, while exercising power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate has summoned the petitioner to face trial along with other accused persons.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that a case was instituted on 30.10.1994 vide Barhara P.S. Case No. 68 of 1994 for the offence under Sections 147, 341, 323, 447 of the Indian Penal Code against six named accused persons including the petitioner. However, after investigation, charge sheet was submitted against number of accused persons, but the petitioner was not sent up for trial. After submission of charge sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and while evidence was going on, a petition under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed on 5th January, 1999 by the prosecution with a prayer to summon the petitioner to face trial along with other accused persons. It was asserted by the prosecution that number of witnesses, during their deposition, had stated indicating direct involvement of the petitioner. On behalf of the petitioner, a rejoinder was also filed before the court below and it was categorically refuted that Other witnesses, who had deposed during the trial against the petitioner, had not made such statement during investigation in their statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, it was prayed to reject the petition. However, after hearing both the parties, by order dated 4.6.1999, the learned Magistrate has allowed the petition filed by the prosecution and summoned the petitioner to face trial along with other accused persons.

(3.) Shri Jagdish Prasad Bhagat, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that on the basis of such contradictory statement, the learned Magistrate was not required to summon the petitioner, that too, at such belated stage. It was further submitted that offence alleged in the case was not very serious in nature and for such trivial offences, the learned Magistrate was not required to summon the petitioner to face trial along with other accused persons. Accordingly, it has been prayed to set aside the impugned order.