ATIQUE AHMAD AND 13 OTHERS Vs. MUNESHWAR RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Criminal Miscellaneous petition is directed against the threshold stage of taking cognizance of an offence under Sec. 436/34 of the Indian penal code against the fourteen petitioners by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga. It is wholly unnecessary to recount the facts in any great detail. Suffice it to mention that the proceeding originated from the lodging of a first information report by the opposite party way back on the 17th of March, 1979 at Singhara Police Station. After investigation a final report was submitted to the effect that the case was not in time and the said report was accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the 9th of April, 1986. However, in the meantime, the opposite party had filed a protest cum complaint petition on the 13th of April, 1979 against all the petitioners. Therein the evidence of two witnesses, namely, Mahendra Ram, and Harish Chandra Yadav was duly recorded during the enquiry under Sec. 202 of the code of Criminal procedure and on a consideration thereof the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that a prima facie case under Sec. 436 read with Sec. 34 was made out against the petitioners and he consequently issued processes by the impugned order. When the case came up for admission on the 7th of July, 1981, the learned single Judge referred it to a Division Bench because of some conflict of precedent within the court. It is, however, common ground now that the controversy stands set at rest by the recent Division Bench judgment in Munilal Thakur and others v/s. Nawal Kishore Thakur and another ( : 1984 PLJR 774): Therein it has been held in no uncertain terms as follows;

(2.) With the aforesaid observation, the Criminal miscellaneous' petition is here by dismissed.