PRADIP KUMAR ROY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these applications arise of the same case and as such both these applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State. No one has appeared for the complainant opposite party No. 2 in spite of repeated calls and in spite of giving sufficient opportunity to the learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, even by making an adjournment in the case for giving an opportunity to him.

(3.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 31.08.2001 passed by Sri A. K. Jaiswal, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Ranchi, in Complaint Case No. 94 of 1996, whereby the application filed on behalf of the accused persons under section 236 of the Cr.P.C., for discharge, was rejected by the Court below asking the petitioners to appear for framing of charge under sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.