CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34391 OF 2000 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ---------- Dhananjay Pandey, Son of Late Jwala Pandey, resident of Village- Narayanpur, Police Station- Sonhan, District-Kaimur, at present resident of Sonbarsa, Madaini, Police Station-Sheosagar, District- Rohtas ------------------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Ganga Dayal Pandey, Son of Late Rikhai Pandey 3. Arun Kumar Pandey, Son of Ganga Dayal Pandey 4. Lalin Kumar Pandey, Son of Arun Kumar Pandey 5. Sunil Kumar Pandey, Son of Arun Kumar Pandey 6. Arbind Kumar Pandey alias Jharar Pandey 7. Harendra Kumar Pandey, both sons of Gouri Shankar Pandey 8. Naga Pandey, Son of Gouri Shankar Pandey 9. Anil Kumar Pandey, Son of Ram Bachan Pandey All residents of village- Sonbarsa Madaini, Post Office-Dhanua, Police Station Sheosagar, District-Rohtas 10. Bharat Pandey, Son of Ram Ekbal Pandey, resident of Village- and Post Office Sonhar, Police Station-Sheosagar, District-Rohtas 11. Anup Bind, Son of Ramraj Bind, resident of Village-Sabeli, Police Station-Sheosagar, District-Rohtas ------------------------------ Opp.Parties. ------------ For the petitioner: S/Sri K.N.Choubey, Sr. Advocate Ambuj Nayan Choubey, Siddharth Harsh , Ritu Priyadarshini, Advocates For Opp.Party no.2: S/Sri B.P.Pandey,Sr. Advocate P.K.Sinha, S.C.Giri and Jaganath Singh, Advocates For the State : Sri Shivesh Chandra Mishra, A.P.P. ----------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. During the course of hearing, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has produced certified copy of the order dated 27.3.2000 passed in Complaint Case No.245 of 2000. Let it be kept on record. 2 2. The sole petitioner, who was complainant before the court below, has approached this Court , while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , with a prayer to quash the order dated 3.7.2000 passed by Sri R.K.Mishra, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in Case No. 245 ( C) of 2000. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the complaint i.e. Complaint Case No.245(C) of 2000 under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the order dated 21.9.2000 passed in Cr.Revision No. 259 of 2000 by 7th Addl.Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, which was preferred against the order of rejection of complaint petition by the petitioner. 3. Short fact of the case is that the petitioner had filed a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.245(C) of 2000 against Opp.Party nos. 2 to 11 on an allegation that the accused persons had committed offences under Sections 147,148,149, 395 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. It was alleged in the complaint petition that on 21.3.2000 the complainant had gone to Sonbarsa to the house of her aunt, namely, Deorati Devi, who was recently murdered. It was alleged that on 21.3.2000 in the night at about 10 O ‘Clock all the accused persons variously armed came to the house of his Aunt. When the complainant raised objection, accused persons put pistol on his chest and by putting the petitioner in fear, accused persons looted articles from the house of his aunt at Sonbarsa. After filing of the complaint petition, the learned Magistrate vide its order dated 27.3.2000 referred the complaint petition to the Dy.Superintendent of Police , Sasaram to investigate /inquire under 3 Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed him to submit report by 27.4.2000. After the order of the learned Magistrate, the Superintendent of Police started enquiring the matter. While the Dy.Superintendent of Police was conducting enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he directed the Officer Incharge of Sheosagar Police Station to institute an F.I.R. and also directed for arresting the accused persons, seizure of licensed gun of Ganga Dayal Pandey ( Opp.Party no.2 of the present case). After noticing the fact that the Dy.Superintendent of Police was transgressing his jurisdiction, the accused persons filed a petition before the learned Magistrate only on the point that the Dy.Superintendent of Police was directed to conduct enquiry and not to direct for registering F.I.R. Thereafter, a report was submitted by the Dy.Superintendent of Police. The learned Magistrate by its order dated 27.04.2000 by assigning a detailed reason refused to accept the report of the Dy.Superintendent of Police. It was considered by the learned Magistrate that the Dy. Superintendent of Police had completely transgressed his jurisdiction in directing for registering F.I.R. Differing with the report of the Dy.Superintendent of Police, the learned Magistrate directed the Probation Officer to conduct an enquiry and report the same by its order dated 27.4.2000 ( Annexure-2 to the present petition). After conducting enquiry, the learned Probation Officer found the entire allegation of the complainant as false, malicious and concocted. After receipt of the report of the Probation Officer, the complainant approached the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence or send the case to any Magistrate. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by its order dated 3.7.2000 agreeing with the recommendation of the Probation Officer 4 rejected the complaint petition. Learned Magistrate had accepted the enquiry report submitted by the Probation Officer. 4. Aggrieved with the order dated 03.07.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereby the complaint petition was rejected under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner preferred a revision application vide Cr.Revision No.259 of 2000. After hearing the parties at length by a detailed Judgment, learned 7th Addl.Sessions Judge, Rohtas dismissed the revision petition. 5. After rejection of the Revision petition, the petitioner- complainant approached this Court by filing the present petition. 6. While pressing the present petition, Sri K.N.Choubey, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the procedure, which was adopted by the learned Magistrate was alien to the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was submitted that once the learned Magistrate had directed the Dy.Superintendent of Police to conduct enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , the learned Magistrate was not authorized to again send the matter for further enquiry to the Probation Officer and, as such, it has been submitted that the order of rejection of the complaint petition was illegal, and similarly the revisional court has not appreciated the points raised by the petitioner. Accordingly, it has been prayed to quash both the orders, i.e. order dated 3.7.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as order dated 21.9.2000 passed by the learned 7th Addl.Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Cr.Revision No.259 of 2000. Learned Senior Counsel while referring to background of the case has submitted that the accused persons had firstly committed offence of 5 murdering aunt of the complainant , for which an F.I.R. was lodged against them vide Sheosagar P.S. Case No.88 of 1999 , in which the police after investigation had submitted chargesheet and another F.I.R. was also lodged vide Sheosagar P.S. Case No.518 of 1999 for the offences under Sections 467,468 , 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code . On the basis of aforesaid materials, it has prayed to quash both the orders and remit back the matter to the Magistrate for proceeding with the complaint case. 7. Sri B.P.Pandey, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party nos. 2 to 11 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It has been argued by Sri Pandey, learned Senior Counsel for Opp.Party nos.2 to 11 that the order, whereby the learned Magistrate had refused to accept the report of the Dy. Superintendent of Police, i.e. order dated 27.4. 2000 had already attained its finality. It was submitted that the said order was never challenged by the petitioner and thereafter the learned Magistrate had directed the Probation Officer to conduct enquiry and Probation Officer after conducting enquiry had found that the allegation made in complaint petition was completely false, malicious and concocted. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate had rightly rejected the complaint petition by its order dated 3.7.2000. It has been submitted by Sri Pandey, learned Senior Counsel for Opp.Party nos.2 to 11 that on earlier occasion, while the Dy.Superintendent of Police had exceeded its jurisdiction during the enquiry, the petitioner had only pointed out this fact to the learned Magistrate by filing a petition. Accused persons had not addressed the Court on merit of the case. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the learned Magistrate had rightly directed for further 6 enquiry by Probation Officer and after receipt of the enquiry report had rightly rejected the complaint petition vide its order dated 3.7.2000. It was further submitted that the rejection of the complaint was approved by the Revisional court. Accordingly, it has been submitted that there is no infirmity in either of the orders. 8. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey , learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has supported the stand taken by Sri B.P.Pandey, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party nos. 2 to 11. 9. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. So far as order dated 27.4.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in Complaint Case No.245 ( C) of 2000 is concerned, the Court is of the view that since the said order is not under challenge before this Court, there is no requirement to pass any comment or give any opinion in respect of the said order. Moreover, even during the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure once Dy. Superintendent of Police exceeded its jurisdiction, the learned Magistrate had taken right course in directing the Probation Officer to conduct the enquiry afresh. In the present case, I have also perused the enquiry report submitted by the Principal Probation Officer, which has been brought as Annexure-4 to the petition( at pages 31 -37) .After going through the materials available on record, the Court is of the opinion that while rejecting the complaint petition, the learned Magistrate has committed no error . Moreover, the matter remained pending before this Court for a long period and after such a long delay, it would not be advisable to direct Opp.Party nos.2 to 11 to participate in the proceeding 7 on such allegation, which has been leveled by the complainant-petitioner in the complaint petition. The said allegation has already been found by the Probation Officer as untrue, false and concocted. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances as indicated above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out a case warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction in his favour. This power is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases. I do not find any merit in the petition and the petition stands rejected. Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 14th September,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)