FELIX TETE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 15-7-1995 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur, and the order dated 29-7- 1995 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Samastipur, in Complaint R. Case No. 439/96 (TR. No. 879/96) whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, had taken cognizance of the offences under Section 295 (A), 298, 323, 342 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and after postponing the process of summons transferred the case to a Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Samastipur, under Section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Code') and the learned Judicial Magistrate, after holding enquiry under Section 202 of the Code issued process against the petitioners.

(2.) A copy of the complaint is at Annexure-1 of the petition which shows that the opposite party No. 2 filed complaint alleging that on 9-7-95 at about 5.15 P.M. he was returning by train from Aligarh to Samastipur. It is alleged that the petitioners who belonged to Railway Protection Force armed with rifles came in the Compartment in which the passengers and opposite party No. 2 werte sitting and made enquiries from when disclosed his name and he told that he is Mohammedon (sic) and then petitioner No. 3 started abusing him and tried to get down from the train and opposite party No. 2 protested. The petitioner No. 1 pushed him and other petitioners, dragged him from the compartment and took his three attacbies and Rs. 50 and railway ticket from his pocket and took him assaulting in another compartment and when another passengers protested the petitioner No. 3 abused the opposite party No. 2 in the name of his religion and, thus, hurt his religious feeling. It is further alleged that the petitioners took opposite party No. 2 to Barauni and retained in the Security Office and also abused opposite party No. 2. It was further alleged that on 10-7-1995 Opposite party No. 2 was produced before the railway Magistrate, Barauni, on false charges and the learned railway Magistrate after taking statement of opposite party No. 2 found the charges to be baseless and dismissed the case and order for return of the seizure articles. A complaint was filed alleging that the petitioners unnecessary assaulted and kept the opposite party No. 2 in illegal custody and hurt his religious feelings by abusing against this religion.

(3.) The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on receiving complaint took cognizance of the offence and postponing the process of summons, he retransferred the case to the other Judicial Magistrate under Section 192 of the Cr. P.C. for enquiry and disposal. That order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is made impugned by the petitioner on the ground that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate could not have transferred the case under Section 192 of the Code to the Judicial Magistrate for enquiry and disposal. Then after taking cognizance the Chief Judicial Magistrate had postponed the process of summon. The contention on behalf of the petitioners in this regard is that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate himself ought to have held enquiry under Section 202 of the Code and ought to have passed order under Sections 203 or 204 of the Code and he should not have transferred the case for enquiry under Section 202 of the Code to the Judicial Magistrate.