RAM SURAT SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Surat Sharma has come to this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, dated 12-7-1982 by which he has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'I. P. C.') against the petitioner.

(2.) It has been said in the petition that the petitioner filed a complaint case No. C. 146 of 1981 on 23-2-1982 against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 under Sections 147, 342, 436, 379 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, who sent the case to the officer-in-charge of Sadar Police Station (Mushari outpost) for instituting a case under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). The case was instituted as Sadar P. S. Case No. 153 of 1981, dated 29-3-1981 and it was entrusted for investigation to the Sub-Inspector of Police, namely, Sri S. C. Choudhary. The said investigating officer, who went to the spot, examined witnesses and found that the hut of the petitioner was set on fire and the opposite party Nos 2 and 3 were holding up the petitioner and other opposite parties were also present there and another witness Ram Ratan Pandey said to the police that he intervened the opposite parties when they were assaulting the complainant. Further the investigating officer had found burnt leaves of Kathal and Banana trees on the spot and he also found Nad and bullock kept by accused-opposite parties. Further he found old burnt marai of the petitioner. The new morai was constructed by the opposite parties and the layer of ground of Marai was raised one feet high.

(3.) In spite of all these findings, final form was submitted by the Sub- Inspector of Police concerned and he also prayed for instituting a case for the offence punishable under Sections 182 and 211,I. P. C. against the petitioner. After the final form was submitted, the petitioner filed a protest petition on 15-5-1981. On 5-8-1981 the final form was received with a report for prosecution of the petitioner under Sections 182 and 211 I. P. C. as stated above. The petitioner though filed Haziri, but the case could not be taken up. It appears that on 13-11-1981 the informant filed Haziri but in spite of repeated calls he did not appear with the result that protest petition was rejected and the final form was accepted. The same day, that is 13-11-1981 the informant filed a petition for hearing the informant on the protest petition. Several dates were fixed in the case but on one or two dates the complainant was absent and so ultimately on 14-4-1982 the petition to recall the order dated 13-11-1981 was dismissed. On 15-4-1982 the protest petition was dismissed.