RATAN KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been preferred under 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting Special Leave to Appeal against the judgment and order dated 06.08.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 168 of 2007/T.R. No. 620 of 2011 whereby the complaint case filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

(2.) THE complaint case was rued by the complainant -petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi for allegedly committing an offence under Sections 469/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code against the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4. It is alleged that petitioner and his family members having made interpolation in the 2nd copy of the tentative builder agreement which was executed in between Kalpna Jain and petitioner with his family members to grab the property in question.

(3.) COUNSEL for the State -A.P.P. has taken a preliminary objection as to statutory provision is provided under Section 372 Code of Criminal Procedure, but Special Leave to Appeal may not be granted to the petitioner and let the right of statutory appeal be exhausted and thereafter they may come to this Court. The learned A.P.P. also submitted that the provision of Code of Criminal Procedure has been amended with effect from 31st December, 2009 based upon 154th report of the Law Commission of India. It is submitted by the A.P.P. that whenever statutory provision of preferring an appeal is given by law, the remedy must be exhausted first and, thereafter, they can approach this Court. The learned A.P.P. has also taken analogy from writ petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for violation of fundamental rights and in those cases, normally the Honble Supreme Court is sending the petitioner to the concerned High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, against the judgment and order of learned Single Judge of the High Court, whenever Letters Patent Appeal is tenable, normally Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is not granted. Similarly, counsel for the State has relied upon decisions rendered by the Full Bench of Honble Patna High Court in Syed Zafrul Hassan v. State (F.B.). reported in 1986 East - Cr. C. 576 (Pat.) (FB) : 1986 PLJR, 274 that whenever there is a concurrent jw1sdiction for grant of anticipatory bail i.e. both by the Sessions Court as well as by the High Court, normally the anticipatory bail applications should be preferred before the Sessions Court. In view of this analogy, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that in the facts of the present case, the parties are not remedyless. They have a right to prefer an statutory appeal against the very judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi before the Sessions Court, Ranchi. Thus, the Special Leave to Appeal may not be granted to the petitioner. Counsel for the State has also pointed out that whenever victim is also the complainant himself, then in all such cases statutory provision of Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be resorted to and whenever the complainant is not the victim like the cases in which the complainant is Income -tax Officer or the officer of the Labour Department, or the Officer of the Food Adulteration Department, in all those cases, complainant and the victims are different persons, in those cases, instead of preferring an appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they can prefer an application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting Special Leave to Appeal. But whenever the complainant and the victim are the same person, then statutory right of preferring appeal must be availed first and in those circumstances, without preferring an appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Special Leave to Appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure may not be entertained by this Court.