SITARAM GOND 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 27.7.1998 passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge IV, Gopalganj in Cr.Revision No.127 of 1998/49 of 1998 . By the said order, the learned Addl.Sessions Judge has quashed the order dated 11.3.1998 passed by Sri R.K.Yadav, Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj in Complaint Case No.228 of 1998, Tr.No.729 of 1998. By order dated 11.3.1998 , the learned Judicial Magistrate had rejected the complaint petition under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure keeping in view the fact that the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that the dispute was purely civil in nature.

(2.) SHORT fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 had filed a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistate, Gopalganj , which was numbered as Complaint Case No.228 of 1998, alleging therein that the petitioner,his brother and two other accused had committed offences under Sections 120 B, 419 , 420, 467,468,471 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged in the complaint petition that accused persons had virtually got a sale deed executed. As per the complaint, the occurrence had taken place on 10.3.1981 and 2.8.1985. The complaint petition describes that one Gulaichi Devi and Gulabi Devi , both daughters of Shiv Chan Gond, i.e. father of the petitioner , got executed and registered a sale deed with respect to properties of Late Deba Gond to one Gagandeo Rai on 13.3.1981 describing themselves to be daughters of late Deba Gond. The sale deed was identified by accused Bishundeo Tiwary. Further case of the complainant is that accused Gagandeo Rai sold the lands on 2.8.1985 covered by sale deed dated 10.3.1981 to Shiv Chan Gond ( father of the petitioner), which was in the knowledge of the petitioner and his brother Thakur Gond. On the aforesaid allegation, the complaint petition was filed , which was transferred by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to the learned Magistrate for enquiry under Section 192(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After conducting enquiry, Sri R.K.Yadav, learned Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj came to the conclusion that it was a case of purely civil nature and, accordingly, he dismissed the complaint petition under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) AFTER going through the impugned order, the Court is of the opinion that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has committed a patent error. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge has recorded his finding that prima facie case against accused persons was made out and thereafter allowed the revision petition and directed the Magistrate to proceed further in the trial. Meaning thereby that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has virtually taken cognizance of the offence. Had there been any error in the order of rejecting the complaint petition by the learned Magistrate, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge after setting aside the said order was required to remit back the case to the learned Magistrate to further examine the matter and thereafter proceed with the case. Virtually, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge by the impugned order has taken cognizance of offences and the learned Magistrate was left with no option, but to proceed further after the stage of cognizance. I am of the opinion that the order dated 27.7.1998 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge IV, Gopalganj in Cr. Revision No.127 of 1998/ 49 of 1998 is not sustainable in the eye of law and, accordingly, the same is set aside.