PURUSOTTAMAL SULTANIAQ Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the cases arise out of a common order dated 30.8.1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Barh and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE facts leading to the case, in brief, is that petitioner Raj Kumar Makharia is the proprietor of a Petrol Pump named as Makharia Petrol Pump. One of sales man, namely, Kamleshwari Sharma gave a letter to the Officer Incharge of Hathidah police station alleging, inter alia, that he was not paid his salary by the proprietor of the petrol pump. It was recorded in Station Diary Entry No. 200 dated 10.4.1986 and on the basis of it a case under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner, being Hathidah P.S. Case No. 21 dated 21.4.1986. During investigation the Officer Incharge of Hathidah Police station brought this petitioner on 21.4.1986 from his petrol pump to the police station. During interrogation regarding the payment of salary to one Kamleshwari Sharma the petitioner intimated that he had already paid salary to informant. In support of his version he has sent a man to Begusarai for bringing necessary document. At about 6 P M. the other petitioner and the father -in -law of the said Makharia (Cr. Rev. No. 806/88) came in a car. The petitioner, Raj Kumar Makharia on pretext of collecting the paper went near the car and thereafter Raj Kumar Makharia, petitioner along with petitioner Purusottamal Sultania fled away from police station. On the basis of his statement regarding this occurrence the Officer Incharge of Hathidah police station drew up a formal F.I.R. After investigation the police submitted charge sheet under sections 224 and 225 of the Indian Penal Code and cognizance was taken up against the petitioners.

(3.) AGAINST the order of cognizance of this case the petitioners moved before this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 10933/86 which was disposed of on 15.12.1986 with an observation that the learned Magistrate at the time of framing of charge will examine the case diary and all the relevant materials and if he comes to the conclusion that the facts constituting the offence is not made out and there is no material in support of the offence then no charge will be framed against the petitioners. Thereafter the Judicial Magistrate on 30.8.1988 after hearing the petitioners on perusal of the records including the order of the Hon'ble High Court and the case diary came to the conclusion that there was sufficient material for framing charge against the petitioners. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioners to be present on 14.9.1988 for framing of charge. Against this impugned order the petitioners have moved this Court.