RAM BILASH YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.6.2000 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Criminal Revision No. 19 of 1997, whereby he dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 2.12.1996 passed by Shri K. M. Tiwary, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. Darbhanga in T.R. Case No. 712 of 1996, by which the learned Magistrate has refused to amalgamate the aforesaid case with complaint case, vide C.R. No. 101 of 1994 under the provision of Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE relevant facts concerning the present application are that one Pitambar Yadav filed written report before the Officer - in -Charge, Sadar Darbhanga on 2.1.94 against 16 accused persons alleging therein that on 2.1.94 at 7.00 p.m. he learnt that the accused persons are harvesting Kharhi crops from his land, so he went to the field along with one Thithar Yadav, Kumber Yadav and Bhim Yadav and restrained the accused persons from harvesting the crops in question, but they did not listen and assaulted the informant and the witnesses, namely, Thithar Yadav and Yogi Yadav. The informant and the injured persons fled away and the accused persons took away the Kharhi crops. Thereafter, it is alleged that Jagdish who is driver of the tractor of one Ram Babu Yadav demolished the grocery shop of Bhutar Yadav and all the accused took away the articles kept in the shop. They also damaged the tea shop of one Brahmdeo Yadav and also took away the betel shop belonging to the informant in which Phillips radio, cash and other articles were kept. It is further alleged that the accused took away buffalo which was tied up at the Bathan of one Ram Jatan Yadav along with a machine and two cycles. The witnesses to the alleged occurrence are the informant and other injured. The police investigated the case and submitted charge -sheet against all 16 accused persons under Sections 147, 447, 323, 427 and 379 of the IPC on 11.2.94, on the basis of which, cognizance was taken on the aforesaid counts. For the alleged occurrence of the sathe date, one Brahmdeo Yadav also filed complaint case bearing C.R. No. 101 of 1994 against 17 accused persons, in Jinish Lal Sah Versus State Of Bihar which the allegation against them were that the complainant was running grocery shop at Dhoi Chowk and was also running a tea shop adjacent to the grocery shop and on 2.1.94 all the 17 accused persons came on a tractor bearing No. BEG -1766 being variously armed and demolished both the shops of the complainant and took away articles including cash worth Rs. 48,450/ - the details whereof have been given in the complaint petition. It is further alleged that accused Ram Babu Yadav looted away a tape recorded valued at Rs. 3,500/ - belonging to the complainant. The complainant and his father, however, fled away from the scene and witnessed the occurrence from the side after concealing themselves. It is alleged that accused persons committed the aforesaid occurrence because prior to the alleged occurrence they looted away the Kharhi crops of Mahabir Yadav and since the complainant was agnatic relation of Mahabir Yadav, the accused persons committed the occurrence. The case was made over to Sri P.K. Upadhyaya, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Darbhanga who held enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr PC and found a prima facie case against all the 17 accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 448, 395 and 427 of the IPC and ordered for issuance of warrant of arrest against the accused persons. The complaint case was transferred to the file of Sri K.M. Tiwary where the police case was pending. The petitioners filed a petition under Section 210 of the Cr PC on 28.6.96 in the police case and prayed to amalgamate the complaint case with the police case but the prayer was rejected by the Magistrate. The petitioners preferred a revision against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, vide Criminal Revision No. 19 of 1997 which was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga who has relied upon a decision reported in 1997 (2) East Cr C 415 (Suresh Thakur & Anr. V/s. State of Bihar & Anr.) and was of the view that since one of the accused of the complaint case is not the accused in the police case, the two cases cannot be amalgamated and both the cases would be tried separately.

(3.) THE provision of Section 210, Cr PC may usefully be quoted as hereunder : ''