LOKNATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal miscellaneous has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 6-7-99 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau in Sessions Trial No. 521A/98, whereby the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge issued non-bailable warrant of arrest and processes under Sections 82-83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint Case No. 28/97 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Palamau. The complaint case was referred under S. 156(3), Cr. P.C. to the concerned police station for institution and investigation of the case and on receipt of the complaint petition at the Chhatarpur Police Station, Chhatarpur P.S. Case No. 47/97 under Ss. 498(A)/304(B) IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the dowry Prohibition Act was instituted agains the petitioner and others. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against others but this petitioner was not sent up for trial. The learned CJM took cognizance against the father-in law, mother-in-law and husband of the deceased and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. After commitment of the case to the Court of sessions on 15-7-98, the records came to the Court of learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau and while framing the charge against the accused, by order dated 6-7-99 the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge passed an order directing the office to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest as well as processes against the petitioner and the case of the petitioner has been split up.

(3.) Learned counselappearing for the petitioner submitted that though a complaint petition was filed implicating this petitioner also and after complaint petition was referred to the police station, a case was instituted under the relevant Sections but the police after completing the investigation submitted charge-sheet against others and not against this petitioner and the learned CJM also did not take cognizance against this petitioner and this petitioner was also not committed to the Court of Sessions by the learned CJM by his order dated 15-7-98 and, therefore, the impugned order dated 6-7-99 is illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Court below could have passed an order against the petitioner under Section 319, Cr. P.C. after recording the evidences of the witnesses but in the instant case no witness has so far been examined and there is no material against the petitioner, as it will appear from non-submission of charge-sheet against him, non-taking of cognizance against the petitioner and non-commitment of the petitioner to the Court of Sessions. Learned counsel further referred to Section 226, Cr. P.C. and submitted that the petitioner has neither appeared nor has been brought before the Court in pursuance of commitment of the case under Section 209 and, therefore, order dated 6-7-99 of the learned Sessions Judge is without jurisdiction. Section 226, Cr. P.C. reads as under :-