SAHEM RAM MAHTO Vs. GOVIND PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Code') for quashing the complaint petition dated 22nd December, 1979 (Annexure-1), the order dated 2-1-1980 taking cognizance (Annexure-2) and the order dated' 23-1-1982 by the charges under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were framed (Annexure-3) against the petitioner.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this miscellaneous case, in short, are that the opposite party No. 1 had filed a complaint against the petitioner in Complaint Case No. 75 of 79 pending before the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo, at Tenughat alleging therein that the petitioner illegally ramoved 300 M. Ts. of sludge rejects coming out of the reservoir of coal washeries situated in mouza Dugdha, in respect of which Mr. Parmeshwar Kumar Agarwal had taken lease from the State of Bihar. The learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate ordered for issuance of summons against the petitioner on 2-1-1980. Subsequently on 23-1-1982 charges under Sections 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were also framed against the petitioner. There was further progress in the case and it was fixed for the judgment to be delivered on 23-12-1982.

(3.) Sri R.N. Sahai Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the facts alleged in the complaint petition do not constitute any offence against the petitioner and as such the prosecution started against him should be quashed. He has further submitted in view of the orders passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. 1085/82 and in petition for special leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 5303 of 81 by the Supreme Court, the prosecution launched against the petitioner cannot continue legally. He has further submitted that the inherent power of this Court can be exercised at any stage of the case. Mr. S. Dayal learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 on the other hand has contended that there is nothing in the orders of this Court and the Supreme Court to help the case of the petitioner. He has also submitted that the facts alleged in the complaint petition clearly make out a case against the petitioner.