Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1152 of 2008 ====================================================== Mandal Yadav, son of Mahendra Yadav, resident of Village Amaitha, P.S.Wazirganj, District Gaya .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Arjun Yadav, son of Kamal Yadav 3. Raja Ram Yadav 4. Shankar Yadav 5. Ranjit Yadav 6. Sita Ram Yadav, 2 to 6 are sons of Arjun Yadav, resident of Village Amaitha, P.S.Wazirganj, District Gaya .... .... Opposite party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghawanand, Advocate For the State of Bihar : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, Addl.P.P. For the Opp. Party Nos. 2 to 6 : Mr. Abhishek, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 5 05-12-2012 Heard the parties. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 4.8.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, in connection with Wazirganj P.S. Case No.120 of 2005, whereby Final Report submitted by the police has been accepted, has preferred the present revision application, questioning the correctness, propriety and validity of the impugned order. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has assailed the impugned order primarily on two grounds. Firstly, that the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya and there was no application of judicial mind, and, secondly, before accepting the Final Report submitted by the police, the informant was entitled to be heard. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1152 of 2008 (5) dt.05-12-2012 2 / 3 2 the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case of Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and Another [(1985) 2 SCC 537], Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others [ (2004) 7 SCC 768 ] and Minu Kumari and Another Vs. State of Bihar and Others [ (2006) 4 SCC 359 ]. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused- opposite parties 2 to 6 has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and has supported the impugned order. However, he has not been able to dispute the aforesaid factual aspect urged on behalf of the petitioner. After having heard the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner lodged a criminal case for offences under [STATUTE] , giving rise to Wazirganj P.S.Case No.120 of 2005 dated 1.7.2005. In the aforesaid criminal case, the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 were arrayed in the category of accused. On close of investigation police submitted Final Report finding the accusations against the accused opposite parties to be false. On plain perusal of the impugned order dated 4.8.2008, this Court surprisingly finds that the order is in a printed form, which is quite unusual for any judicial proceeding. Few words have been added in the vacant columns by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya and Final Report submitted by the police has been accepted. The manner in which the impugned order dated 4.8.2008 has been passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, is normally not expected from a Judicial Officer. On that ground alone, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order. In fact, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1152 of 2008 (5) dt.05-12-2012 3 / 3 3 Gaya was expected to apply his judicial mind to the facts of the case and only thereafter he could have passed his order, either accepting the Final Report or passing an order in disagreement with it. Obviously, that has not been done in the present case. This Court further finds that there is no material available on the record to show that before passing the impugned order, any opportunity of hearing was given to the informant. Since after close of investigation police submitted Final Report, and that has been accepted by the impugned order, but, in view of the judicial pronouncements by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Bhagwant Singh ( Supra), Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre (Supra) and Minu Kumari and Another (Supra) , the informant was entitled to have an opportunity of hearing. Apparently, that has not been done in the present case. On that count also, the impugned order cannot be sustained. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned order dated 4.8.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in Wazirganj P.S.Case No. 120 of 2005 is set aside and the matter is remitted back for passing a fresh order strictly in accordance with law. Since the matter has been delayed, it is expected that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, shall pass a fresh order within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The application stands allowed with the observations and directions made above. Kanth/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 302

Statute Text:
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Murder. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.