OM PRAKASH AND ORS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged an order dated 25.04.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ist, Begusarai in Cri. Revision No.138 of 2007 dismissing the same as well as an order dated 05-05-2007 passed by Sri K.K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class in connection with Cheria Bariyarpur P.S. Case No.63/2002 whereby and whereunder the aforesaid case has been directed to be committed to the court of Session in accordance with Section 323 of the Cr.P.C. as well as rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for discharge in accordance with Section 239 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) Opposite Party No.2 had filed Complaint Case No.650(c)/2002 against the petitioner and others which was sent to the concerned P.S. for registration and investigation of the case under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. whereupon Cheria Bariyarpur P.S. Case No.63/2002 was registered and investigation was taken up and after concluding the same charge sheet was submitted.

(3.) Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the successive orders of the learned Revisional Court as well as learned lower court happen to be bad in law because of the fact that the both the courts below have failed to acknowledge the basic ingredients for consideration of the theme of case and counter case. Further elaborating his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the facts of both the cases, it is evident that Cheria Bariyarpur P.S. Case No.62/2002 was registered for commission of dowry death. After coming to know about the same, the Opposite Party No.2 who stood as one of co-accused of Cheria Bariyarpur P.S. Case No.62/2002 had filed this case putting an allegation that petitioner along with others had misappropriated the ornaments which was entrusted to them by the deceased after having murder of her husband by dacoits and further after accidental death of deceased, the accused persons by putting coercion and threat succeeded in obtaining documents in their favour on the pretext of providing monetary benefits to the children of deceased. So submitted that the learned lower court had wrongly took notion that both the cases were counterblast to each other hence both the same should be tried by the concerned court.