BIJAY KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This application has been filed for setting-aside the order dated 15.2.2012 in T.R. No. 77 of 2011 passed by Sri N. Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 245 Cr.P.C., has been rejected by the Court below holding that there is prima facie case against the petitioner for the offence under Section 406 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly the petitioner's application was rejected and he was asked to appear before the Court for framing of the charge.

(2.) It appears that a complaint petition being Complaint Case No. 679 of 2005 was filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih by the Complainant-O.P. No. 2 Md. Bablu Ansari, wherein the petitioner being the Circle Officer of Giridih and one Dilip Kumar Gupta, Circle Inspector, Giridih Block were made accused. In the said complaint petition, it was alleged by the complainant that he had filed an application for mutation of the land in his favour, which was not done and the accused-petitioner had taken Rs. 12,000/- from the complainant on the pretext of compensating the revenue loss to the Government. It is further alleged that the mutation was being deferred on one pretext or the other. It is also alleged that the accused had demanded Rs. 10,000/- as bribe for mutation. With these allegations, complaint petition had been filed against the petitioner and the other co-accused.

(3.) It appears that the statement of the complainant was recorded on solemn affirmation and it also appears that the complainant examined five witnesses including himself before the charge, who had supported the complainant's case. It further appears that an application was filed by the petitioner for discharge which was rejected by the Court below holding that on the basis of material brought on record, prima facie case was there against the petitioner for the offence under Section 406 and 504 of the IPC and accordingly the application for discharge was rejected by the Court below by the impugned order.