MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A counter affidavit has been filed for and on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner happened to be an accused in connection with Dehri P.S. case no. 359 of 1999 (G.R. no. 1641 of 1999). He was arrested on 10.3.2000 and was produced before the C.J.M. on that very date i.e. on 10.3.2000. On that date itself the petitioner had filed a petition before the C.J.M., Sasaram, which is contained in Annexure -2 and notice of that petition was taken by the C.J.M. Rohtas at Sasaram on the later part of the order dated 10.3.2000 wherein allegations were made that the petitioner was called in the Dehri Police Station and then misbehaviour was done with him making several abusive words. He was beaten mercilessly which caused injuries on his person and that such occurrence was seen by the witnesses, the name of whom had already been mentioned in the Annexure -2 itself. On the other hand, it appears that the police had also brought to the notice of the C.J.M. that the accused -petitioner being a hardened criminal had made attempt to jump out from the custody and created drama while he was being taken to the court in the vicinity of his residence. But then he was captured and in course of such capturing he had also injured one of the police officers. On such statement of the police officers a further case was lodged against the petitioner being Dehri P.S. case no.95 of 2000. But the complaint made by the petitioner on that very date before the C.J.M. remained unattended on its legality. Only instructions were given for having treatment by the jail doctor to the alleged injury caused on the person of the petitioner. It may be mentioned here that in Dehri P.S. Case no. 95 of 2000 already cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Sections 224, 225, 511, 523, 341, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. But inspite of petitioners complaint, the same remained unattended. When it was placed before the C.J.M. on a later date then vide order dated 18.9.2000, as contained in Annexure -6, the learned C.J.M. held that as no separate complaint has been filed the petition filed on 10.3.2000 by the petitioner cannot be taken into action of. On the fact of it, it appears that the learned C.J.M. has committed error. When some cognizable offence has been there before the C.J.M. then it must be the bounden duty of the Magistrate either to proceed on such complaint being made as a complaint petition and hold enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or to proceed as per law under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But simply by saying that the complaint petition is not in order, the same cannot be rejected with an observation that separate complaint has not been filed. If the petition filed vide Annexure -2 dated 10.3.2000 does not conform to the ingredients to complaint as contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure then the court can act in that respect but it cannot be rejected by saying that no separate complaint has been filed.

(3.) IN that way, the order dated 18.9.2000 in respect of the petition at Annexure -2 filed by the petitioner is hereby quashed and the learned C.J.M., Rohtas at Sasaram is hereby directed to proceed accordinig to law as per observation made above.