ANTU RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 29 petitioners who have been made to figure as accused in Complaint Case No. 261(C) of 2002. pending in the Court of learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhabhua have preferred this application for quashing of the order dated 3.6.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kaimur at Bhabhua in Criminal Revision No. 11 of 2003 whereby he has rejected the revision filed on behalf of the petitioners herein with a prayer that the order taking cognizance passed by the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhabhua, was not in accordance with law.

(2.) ONE Faria Devi filed the aforesaid complaint case inter alia stating that on the alleged date and time of occurrence the petitioners variously armed with lethal weapons entered into her house, damaged the wall, assaulted the inmates and looted away the households articles including clothes and ornaments. It has also been alleged that the complainant went to the local police station to register a case but as the police was not inclined to institute a case hence the complaint. It has also been stated that the injured were removed to the Mohania Referral Hospital for treatment.

(3.) THE primary grievance of the petitioners is that the learned inquiring court while passing the order dated 12.12.2002 taking cognizance, has acted in a mechanical manner without applying its judicial mind as a consequence whereof there has been miscarriage of justice. In this connection, it was sought to be submitted that for the same occurrence Ramgarh PS. Case No. 34 of 2002 was registered at the instance of one Jharia Devi and notwithstanding the same the learned Sub - Divisional Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance of the complaint case which only indicated the non -application of judicial mind. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate had failed to take into the account the facts that there was existence of previous enmity between the parties and resultant litigation amongst them and in that view of the matter the taking cognizance in the complaint case was an abuse of the process of the court.