MANOJ JHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 10-1-2002 passed in T.R. No. 299/2001.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this application are that the opposite party No. 2 filed a Criminal Case No. 38/98 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda under S. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") stating therein that she was married with the petitioner on 22-2-1996 according to Hindu rites and customs and out of their matrimonial relationship a daughter was born. After birth of daughter petitioner started ill-treating her and she was not allowed even the good food. Parents of the petitioner also used to ill-treat her and they demanded a sum of Rs. 25,000.00, a colour T.V., a motor cycle etc. and lastly she was driven out in the month of April, 1998. She claimed that petitioner has got sufficient landed property and as such she may be paid Rs. 1000.00 per month for maintenance of her child and herself. The opposite party No. 2, who was applicant in T.R. No. 299/2001, was asked to lead her evidence and on 5-2-2001 the opposite party No. 2 filed an application requesting to close her case and on her prayer the learned Court below closed the evidence of opposite party No. 2 and this petitioner was asked to produce witnesses and adduce evidence. By the impugned order dated 5-2-2001 the learned Court below, after lapse of 11 months passed order recalling the order and closure of the case of the opposite party No. 2 applicant. The petitioner was leading his evidence and, therefore, there was no occasion for the learned Court below to re-open the case of opposite party No. 2.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the applicant, who is the opposite party No. 2 here in this revision application, had herself filed a petition for closing the case and in pursuance of that petition her case was closed and, therefore, there was no occasion for this opposite party No. 2-applicant to file a fresh petition for permitting her to give some more evidence as by now she has got the concocted documents and wanted to utilize those concocted documents to fill up the lacuna of the case. The learned counsel further pointed out that Criminal Courts have got no inherent power to recall its own order like S. 482 of the Code with which the High Court is vested for inherent jurisdiction and, therefore, the learned Court below was not justified to recall its own order of closure of the case and re-open the same to facilitate the applicant-opposite party No. 2 to lead further evidence and to fill up the lacuna.