NITYANATH JHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against an order, dated the 30th July, 1963, passed by the District Magistrate of Darbhanga.

(2.) The relevant facts may be shortly stated. A proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was drawn up, prohibiting the parties from going upon the disputed land. Opposite party No. 2 made an application for filing a complaint against, the petitioners on the allegation that, in spite of service of notice under Section 144, the petitioners had infringed the order by going upon the land and harvesting the crops, and had thereby committed an offence tinder Section 188 of the Penal Code. The Block Development Officer made an inquiry and report. On a perusal of the inquiring officer's report, Mr. M.S. Srivastava, the second officer, dropped the proceeding. This means that he refused to file a complaint against the petitioners. Thereafter, opposite party No. 2 filed a criminal revision before the District Magistrate. By the impugned order, the District Magistrate set aside the second officer's order, and directed the Sub-divisional Magistrate to file a complaint for an offence under Section 188 against the petitioners.

(3.) The first point raised by Mr. Padmanand Jha, who appears on behalf of the petitioners, is that the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to set aside the second officer's order. The second point which he has urged is that, in any case, the District Magistrate could not direct the Sub-divisional Magistrate to file a complaint, and that, if he was of opinion that a complaint should be filed, he should have filed it himself.