Criminal Miscellaneous No.28340 OF 1999 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ------------- Chandra Shekhar Mishra, Son of Sri Jawahar Mishra, Village- Kahara as Via- Dhaubouli, Police Station Sourbazar( New P.S. Patarghat), District- Saharsa --------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Chandra Narayan Jha, Son of Late Parmanand Jha 3. Devkant Jha, Son of Late Prabhu Nr.Jha 4. Udhab Kr. Mishra, Son of Shatrughan Mishra 5. Gouri Kant Jha, Son of Chandra Nr.Jha 6. Shiv Kumar Jha, Son of Deb Kant Jha 7. Nand Kumar Jha, Son of Deb Kant Jha All residents of Village-Kahara, Via-Dhabouli, P.S. Sourbazar, New P.S. Patarghat, District- Saharsa ( Accused)-- (Petitioner) -------------- Opp.Parties. ------------ For the petitioner : None. For Opp.Party no.2 : S/Sri B.K.Sinha, Sr. Advocate Rikesh Sinha & Alok Kr.Sinha, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, A.P.P. ----------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. On repeated calls, none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. 2. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , has prayed for quashing of the order dated 29.9.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Cr.Rev.No.236 of 1999 . By the said order, the learned Sessions Judge, Saharsa has allowed the revision petition, which was preferred by Opp.Parties 2 against the order dated 4.6.1999 in Complaint Case No.319 ( C) of 1999. By the said order ,the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of offences under Sections147,148,149,323,341,423,504,379, 465, 468, 469 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Short fact of the case is that the petitioner had filed a complaint case vide Complaint Case No.319( C) of 1999 in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa disclosing therein that accused persons ,i.e. Opp.Parties had forged certain documents relating to land of the complainant and, thereafter, by way of forging documents the accused persons forming an unlawful assembly arrived at the land of the complainant and accused persons forcibly took away the bricks and sand of the complainant, which were stacked over the land of the complainant . It was alleged that in the said occurrence, he suffered a loss of Rs. 3200/-. After filing of the complaint petition, the complainant was examined on S.A. and two witnesses were also examined on behalf of the complainant. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate vide its order dated 4.6.1999 took cognizance of offences as mentioned above. 4. Aggrieved by the order of cognizance , the accused persons,i.e. Opp.Party nos.2 to 7 preferred a revision petition vide Cr.Rev.No.236 of 1999, which was finally allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Saharsa vide its order dated 29.9.1999 . 5. In this case, though none appeared on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Birendra Kumar Sinha, Senior Counsel has appeared on behalf of Opp.Party no.2 to 7. Sri Sinha , Learned Senior Counsel has 3 supported the revisional order. In course of arguments, learned Senior Counsel has argued that from the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Sessions Judge, Saharsa has rightly passed the impugned order. He further submits that in Complaint petition itself, it has been admitted that civil cases were pending in between the parties and, as such, he has prayed for rejection of the present petition. 6. Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has supported the present petition. He submits that during the enquiry besides the complainant, two witnesses were examined, who had categorically supported the case of the complainant. He further submits that perusal of the complaint petition makes it clear that offences were committed by the accused persons and while taking cognizance, learned Magistrate had examined everything and thereafter he had passed a legal order. He further submits that the learned Sessions Judge, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, was not required to act as an appellate court. He submits that while hearing the revision petition, virtually the learned Sessions Judge has conducted a mini trial and he had examined several documents, but he failed to notice the offences, which were disclosed in the complaint petition as well as in the evidence of witnesses, who were examined in support of the complaint petition. 7. Besides hearing learned counsel for Opp.Parties and learned counsel for the State, I have also examined the materials available on the record as well as the order of revisional court. While perusing the revisional order, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge 4 has exceeded his jurisdiction in the revisional order. Learned Sessions Judge has observed that he had examined several documents, which were produced by the parties and thereafter he recorded the finding that the matter was purely of civil nature and thereafter the learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order. I am of the view that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, the learned Sessions Judge was not required to inquire in such a detail that, too, while he was hearing a petition filed against an order of cognizance . The learned Sessions Judge was not required to examine the evidence in such a detail. At the time of cognizance the materials, which were brought before the learned Magistrate, was examined by him and only after being satisfied that the prima facie case was made out, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance. At that very time, he was not required to conduct a trial. He was only to be satisfied with the prima facie case to proceed with the complaint case and the learned Magistrate had rightly passed the order of cognizance in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. I am of the view that the learned Sessions Judge, while allowing the revision petition, has exceeded its jurisdiction and accordingly the order dated 29.9.1999 passed in Cr.Rev. No.236 of 1999 is set aside and petition stands allowed and the case is remitted to the Court of the learned Magistrate to further proceed in the complaint Case. 9. Since the matter is old, it is expected that the learned Magistrate will take steps for expeditious disposal of the case. 5 After disposal of the case, it is necessary to direct the Office to immediately remit back the lower court record to the concerned court along with copy of this order. With the above observation and direction, the petition stands allowed. Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 27th April,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J )