ANIRUDH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing the order dated 6.11.2004 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Criminal Revision No. 56 of 2004 by which he has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 10.2.2004 passed by Shri G.K. Shrivastava, J.M. 1st Class, Hajipur in G.R. Case No. 1592 of 1999. By the said order the learned Judicial Magistrate has rejected the prayer made by the informant (petitioner in the present application) to transfer the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge where Sessions Trial No. 43 of 2001 is pending.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that Bidupur Police Station registered two cases being Bidupur P.S. Case No. 158/99 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 427 and 505/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Bidupur P.S. Case No. 159/99. The case instituted vide Bidupur P.S. Case No. 159/99 is a counter blast to Bidupur P.S. Case No. 158/99. The police submitted charge -sheet in Bidupur P.S. Case No. 158/99 under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the same is pending before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur as Sessions Trial No. 43. of 2001. Bidupur P.S. Case No. 159/99 is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur. The petitioner filed a petition before the learned Magistrate to send Bidupur P.S. Case No. 159/99 to the Court of Sessions because the parties of both the cases are the same and both the cases arise out of the same occurrence and the P.O. of both the cases are also the same. As such, both the cases, in the interest of justice, should be tried together by one Court but the learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the same. Thereafter, he preferred Criminal Revision No. 56 of 2004 but the said revision application was also dismissed. Hence, this application for quashing of both the orders.

(3.) THOUGH , the Magistrate was empowered under Section 323 of the Code to commit the case pending in his Court to the Court of Session, the order of the learned Magistrate shows that the case is pending since long for argument and the petitioner has adopted delaying tactics. The present application under Section 482 of the Code also shows that the trial of the Sessions case is at the fag end and only the IO and the doctor are to be examined. Therefore, if the case pending in the Magistrate Court is committed to the Court of Session, there would be further delay in disposal of both the cases. Hence, I do not think it proper to interfere with the impugned order.