SAYED RAZA ABBAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DESPITE repeated call, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

(2.) IN this case, while issuing notice to opposite party No. 2 vide Order dated 22.12.1998, this Court also directed that in the meanwhile, operation of the order dated 21.9.1998 passed by Sri Narendra Kumar Srivastava, Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan in Cr. Revision No. 289 of 1995/42 of 1997 shall remain stayed. Despite valid service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 and thereafter, by order dated 23.4.1999, the petition was admitted for hearing and at the stage of hearing also, notice was ordered to be issued opposite party No. 2. Even at the time of hearing, the opposite party No. 2 has not appeared. It was further directed that till further order is passed, the interim order passed on 22.12.1998 shall continue. A stay order is still continuing. 3. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of order dated 21.9.1998 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan in Cr. Revision No. 289 of 1995/42 of 1997. By the said order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had set aside the order dated 17.5.1995 whereby complaint petition was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate. While setting aside the order dated 17.5.1995, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ordered to remit back the case for summoning the accused/petitioner and also directed for holding and concluding trial expeditiously.

(3.) THE short facts of the case is that the opposite party No. 2 has filed a complaint vide Complaint Case No. 702 of 1993 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan disclosing therein that the opposite party No. 2 had earlier filed a complaint case on 17.11.1992 vide Complaint Case No. 1025 of 1992 corresponding to Trial No. 10631 of 1992 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 379, 382 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner. In the said complaint, the learned Magistrate, after enquiry, had taken cognizance and aggrieved with the order of cognizance, this petitioner filed a Cr. Revision vide Cr. Revision No. 318 of 1992. It was alleged by the opposite party No. 2 in the present complaint i.e. Complaint Case No. 702 of 1993 that before the revisional court, the petitioner filed a forged "Sada Patta" granted by Syed Ali Mehdi Mahroom and Syed Ali Akbar in respect of a pond. Accordingly, in the present complaint, the complainant had alleged that petitioner had committed offences under Sections 456, 467, 471 land 420 of the Indian Penal Code. In the complaint case filed on behalf of the complainant, he was examined on S.A. and thereafter, few witnesses were also examined in support of the complaint. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate, after conducting enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr. P.C. came to conclusion that the complaint was prima facie in the nature of civil dispute and, accordingly, he rejected the complaint case by its order dated 17.5.1995.