SHEIKH MIANJAN MIAN Vs. RAJBALLABH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been directed against an order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Hazaribagh, dated the 6th February, 1967, directing Sri S.N. Laha, Magistrate 1st class to hold further enquiry and report by the 30th March, 1967., The facts leading to the filing of the present revision petition are as follows.

(2.) A complaint was filed by the petitioner on the 26th August, 1965, before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Hazaribagh, who, after examining the complainant on solemn affirmation, dismissed the complaint by his order of the same date. The allegation in the complaint petition was that while the. complainant along with 25 others including women was doing transplanting work in his Jobia khet at about l0 A.M. on the 25th August, 1965, in village Dhothuwa P.S. Ramgarh district Hazaribagh the seven opposite party came to the said field and asked the complainant to stop transplantation at the point of guns. The complainant and his men stopped transplantation work and thereafter when the complainant's party was fleeing away the opposite party chased them up to village Dhothua and opened fire as a result of which Mokram Mian, Maniruddin and Jalaluddin received gun shot injuries and the first two persons succumbed to their injuries. The allegation against the opposite party was that they hatched a plan and in conspiracy committed the offence in question. It was further averred in the complaint petition that the accused persons could have averted the situation by arresting the members of complainant's party if there was any occasion for doing so but instead indulged in this heinous crime. It may be stated here that out of seven accused opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 are residents of village Mael (Mael Colliery) and opposite party Nos. 6 and 7 are residents of village Dhuthwa, while opposite party No. 4 Lakh Narayan Singh is officer-in-charge of police station Ramgarh and opposite party No. 5 Suresh Prasad is Sub Inspector attached to Ramgarh police station.

(3.) The petitioner filed a revision application before the Sessions Judge against the order of dismissal of the complainant praying for further enquiry (criminal revision No. 116 of 1965) which was allowed by the Sessions Judge and further enquiry was ordered. On receipt of the aforesaid order the Sub-divisional Magistrate directed Sri R.L.P. Sukla, to enquire and report in the matter. On the protest of the petitioner the Sub-divisional Magistrate recalled the enquiry and entrusted it to another 1st class Magistrate Sri S.N. Mahto, Shri Mahto after enquiry submitted his report that present case was a false one. On perusal of the report and after hearing, the Sub-divisional Magistrate dismissed the complaint as no prima facie case was made out. Against the said order petitioner filed a revision petition (Cr. Rev. 172 of 1966) before the Sessions Judge which was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge who directed further enquiry by his order dated the 28th January, 1967. , The Sub-divisional Magistrate, on receipt of the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, passed the impugned order on the 6th February, 1967, and directed Sri B.N. Laha, Magistrate 1st class, to hold further enquiry and report by the 30th May, 1967.