BIMLESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON some report, Respondent No. 2 was made an accused in a Sessions Trial, thereafter the Respondent No. 2 filed a private complaint interalia alleging that the present applicants are guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate after recording the verification statement rejected the private complaint that order was quashed by the High Court in Cr. Revision No. 398/1995 on 13.5.1996 and the Magistrate was directed to re - consider the case and pass orders in accordance with law.

(2.) AFTER remittance the concerned Magistrate by its order dated 2.9.1996 again held that no prima - facie case is made out against the present applicant, again dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved by order dated 2.9.1996, the complainant -Respondent No. 2 came to this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 22936/1996. The said petition was allowed by this Court on 26.6.1997. This Court observed that there were two cases in relation to the same occurrence, one by the wife of the Petitioner and the other by the son of the deceased and as in the police matter, the Magistrate was pleased to take cognizance and as the law is clear that such cases should be tried together, the order dated 2.9.1996 cannot be allowed to stand. This Court accordingly quashed the said order, remitted the matter to the learned Magistrate to proceed further in the matter in view of the observations made in the. said order.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the observations made by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge an contrary to record and the reliance by the said learned Judge on Sections 193 and 194 of the Code are misplaced. He submits that unless the procedure as prescribed under Section 202 is observed and thereafter the case is committed in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Sessions Judge would have no jurisdiction to proceed further with the trial.