UGRA NARAYAN CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Five 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 29.9.1999 passed by the Sessions Judge, Madhubani in Cr. Revision No.440 of 1999. By the said order the learned Sessions Judge has set aside the order dated 6.7.1999 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhanhharpur, and remanded back the matter to the court of learned Magistrate with a direction to give a fresh consideration of the matter and pass proper order as provided under the law.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint vide Complaint Case No.33 of 1999 on 11.1 1999 alleging therein that while he along with others was performing Puja by reciting Bhajan, the accused persons arrived there. They abused and assaulted them addressing the complainant and their men by their caste name. In the said occurrence, it was alleged that the accused persons forcibly took away Mirdang and Jhal amounting to Rs.700/- (rupees seven hundred). The complaint petition was filed for offences under sections 147, 323, 342, 307, 504 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After filing of the complaint, the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and in support of the complaint four witnesses were examined at the enquiry stage. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate after completing the enquiry and examining the materials brought on record did not take cognizance either under sections 147, 342, 307, 504, 448 of the Indian Penal Code or section 3(x) of the SC/ST Act. However, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was prima facie satisfied that offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code was made out and thereafter the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and transferred the case for disposal to the court of Sri R.S. Shukla, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jhanjharpur by its order dated 6.7.1999.

(3.) Since the learned Magistrate had refused to take cognizance for the offences as mentioned in the complaint petition, particularly for violation of the provisions of SC/ST Act, the complainant filed a revision vide Cr. Revision No.440 of 1999. The said revision was allowed by order dated 29.9.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Madhubani. While allowing the revision application the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order dated 6.7.1999 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur and remanded back the record to the court of learned Magistrate with a direction to examine the materials afresh.