SUSHILA SINHA Vs. RAMASHISH CHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 3.4.2008 passed by this Court in Cr.Rev. No. 34 of 2005 by which this Court observed,

(2.) Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Babban Lal submitted that said order was passed without making the petitioner-complainant as a party in the said criminal revision as she had preferred C.P. Case No. 538 of 2000 which was pending before Shri S.L. Shaw, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad on the complaint petition filed on behalf of the petitioner and inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated. Having been satisfied with the materials, a prima facie case was found to be made out for the alleged offence under Sections 147/323/379/452 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, summons were issued to the opposite party Nos. 1 to 6 herein. Thereafter evidence was recorded before framing of charge and then the members of the opposite party filed a petition under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for their discharge which was rejected with the observation,

(3.) According to the petitioner, charge was framed on 29.7.2004 under Sections 147/323/379/452 of the Indian Penal Code against the members of the opposite party, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter one witness namely Chandradeo Pd. Sinha was examined, cross-examined and was discharged but in the meantime, members of the opposite party preferred Cr. Rev. No. 34 of 2005 against the order impugned dated 12.7.2004 recorded in C.P. Case No. 538 of 2000 without informing the Trial Court about the pendency of the criminal revision before the Jharkhand High Court. In the meantime, prosecution produced and examined almost all the witnesses in support of the complaint case who were cross-examined by the counsel for the members of the opposite party without whispering that Cr. Rev. No. 34 of 2005 was pending for disposal before this Court against the order dated 12.7.2004. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, accused persons were examined and their statements were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but even at that stage none of the accused/members of the opposite party deliberately concealed that Cr. Rev. No. 34 of 2005 was pending and for such reasons they did not answer the questions put to them individually by the Trial Magistrate. Case was fixed for defence evidence and also for final argument but in the meantime the order of this Court passed in Cr.Rev. No. 34 of 2005 on 3.4.2008 was communicated by which the order dated 12.7.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class in C.P. Case No. 538 of 2000 was set aside with the observation, referred to hereinbefore. It was submitted that the said order of this Court dated 3.4.2008 was put up after three months on 28.7.2008 before the Trial Magistrate to his utter surprise as because the pendency of Cr.Rev. No. 34 of 2005 was never pointed out to the Trial Court at any stage of trial and even during recording of the statements of the accused/members of the opposite party under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which used to be a milestone for pause in a criminal proceeding by giving opportunity to the accused to explain the defence. The learned Counsel added that even no stay was granted by the Jharkhand High Court in C.P. Case No. 538 of 2000 during pendency of Cr. Rev. No. 34 of 2005 and in that manner Trial Court was completely put in dark.