BHUNESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOUR petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 1.2.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hajipur in Complaint Case No. C1-2074 of 2001, Tr.No.1250 of 2002, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 376/ 511, 323, 380, 452 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code so far as petitioner no.1 Bhuneshwar Singh is concerned and order of cognizance was passed against rest of three petitioners for the offence under Sections 323,380, 452 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners have further prayed for quashing of the order dated 17.12.2002 passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Cr.Revision No.56 of 2002, whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has dismissed the Revision Petition.

(2.) SHORT fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 filed a complaint on 10.10.2001 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur vide Complaint Case No.C1 2074 of 2001 arraying the petitioners as accused for commission of offences under Sections 323,376, 380, 452 , 504 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code. After filing the complaint, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide its order dated 10.10.2001 transferred the case to the court of Sri A.K.Sharan , Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at Hajipur under Section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enquiry and disposal of the complaint case. It was disclosed in the complaint petition that her husband was employed in Intelligence Service, Govt. of India and he was posted somewhere else. However, the complainant along with her three daughters and two minor sons were residing in the village. It was alleged that accused persons conspiring with each other were misbehaving and teasing the complainant and her three daughters off and on. Often the accused persons after coming to the door of the complainant used to abuse and assault them. It was disclosed that since the accused persons were powerful persons of the village, interference of the villagers never gave any favourable result and having irritated with such behaviour of the accused persons she filed an application before the Superintendent of Police, Hajipur. After coming to know regarding filing of such application, accused persons became enraged and on the date and time of occurrence, petitioner no.1 came to the door of the complainant and started abusing and started assaulting the complainant. In the said occurrence, it was also alleged by the complainant that accused petitioner no.1 even tried to outrage her modesty and tried to commit rape and her clothes were torn. On the alarm raised by the children of the complainant, other accused persons (petitioner nos.3 and 4) armed with Lathi and Danda arrived there and started assaulting the complainant and her children. In the said occurrence, they had 3 also broken the door of the complainant and after entering into the house, accused persons started to forcibly lifting the complainant. Any how, on the intervention of the villagers, the complainant could be saved. It was also alleged that in the occurrence, accused persons had forcibly taken gold Top and chain amounting to Rs.7000/-. During the course of enquiry, the complainant was examined on S.A. and in support of the complaint petition about seven witnesses were examined and finally by order dated 1.2.2002 after examining the complaint petition, statement of the complainant on S.A. and evidence of complaint witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hajipur took cognizance of offences under Sections 376/511, 323, 380, 452 and 504 of the Indian Penal code against accused Bhuneshwar Singh ( petitioner no.1) and against rest of the accused persons, cognizance order was passed for the offences under Sections 323, 380, 452 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judicial Magistrate also directed for issuance of summons for securing attendance of the accused persons. The petitioners against the order of cognizance thereafter preferred a revision petition vide Cr.Revision No.56 of 2002 and the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur vide its order dated 17th December,2002 rejected the revision petition mainly on the ground that the order, which was challenged , was an interlocutory order against which revision was not maintainable.

(3.) BESIDES hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Before coming to the revisional court' order, I have minutely examined the order of cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate, The learned Magistrate has examined the case in detail. During the enquiry altogether seven witnesses were examined in support of the complaint. The allegation made in the complaint petition specifically makes out the case of commission of offence and thereafter the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. Regarding the date and time of occurrence, the Court is of the opinion that on such material it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the order of cognizance. The case is at the initial stage. Those facts could be clarified or examined during the trial and not at this stage. Time without number, it has been held that this Court should refrain from interfering with a criminal proceeding at its initial or interlocutory stage. It has also been clarified that power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be exercised in exceptional cases. The Court is of the opinion that the order of cognizance requires no interference. If the Court is satisfied that the order of cognizance was passed legally and correctly, there is no requirement to pass any order or comment against the order of the revisional court.