BHIKHRANJAN YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) IN the instant case no First Information Report was filed. A complaint was lodged. The Magistrate considered the statement on oath of the complainant and of the witnesses. He directed the Sub -Divisional Officer to make an investigation and looked into the report of the Sub -Divisional Officer. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the report of the Sub -Divisional Officer was an extraneous material and accordingly, the same could not be looked at. The impugned order, it was submitted, would show that while passing the order, the learned Magistrate relied upon extraneous materials and accordingly, the impugned order must go. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Naresh Singh and Ors. vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 1988 P. L.J.R. 216 and in particular, paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 thereof.

(3.) WHILE delivering the judgment in Naresh Singh and Ors. vs. The State of Bihar, the Division Bench observed as follows: Sec.203 itself makes it clear that before dismissing the petition of complaint, the Magistrate has to consider the statement on oath of the complainant and of the witnesses alongwith the result of the enquiry or investigation, if any, held under sec. 202.