CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9221 OF 2001 ------ In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------ INDU BHUSHAN TIWARY son of late Harinandan Tiwary, resident of village-Kariyanna, P.S.-Silao, Dist.-Nalanda. ……. …….Petitioner Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Sita Ram Singh son of late Hari Singh 3.Anil Singh 4.Niranjan Singh Both sons of Sita Ram Singh, resident of village- Kariyanna, P.S.-Silao, Dist.-Nalanda ------- For the petitioner: Mr.Arun Kumar Arun For the State: Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. ------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ------- Rakesh Kumar,J. The petitioner, who was initially complainant and, thereafter, become informant in Silao P.S. Case 393 of 1999, is before this court with a prayer to quash the order dated 14.11.2000 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nalanda in Cr.Revision No.232 of 2000, which was preferred by the petitioner against the order of acceptance of the final form, which was also rejected by the sessions Judge. 2. Short fact of the case is that the petitioner had initially filed a case which was registered as Complaint Case No.23C of 1999 against opposite party nos.2 to 4 and same was transferred to the police for its registration and investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, a first information report vide Silao P.S.Case No.393 of 1999 was registered on 25.11.1999 against opposite party nos.2 to 4 for the offences under sections 341, 323, 397 and 385/34 of the Indian Penal Code. While investigation was going on the petitioner, who 2 was complainant, apprehending that the police may not do justice with the investigation, filed a protest petition. Subsequently, the police submitted final form as the case ‘untrue’. After submission of the final form, by order dated 29.5.2000 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted the same and dropped the case. 3. Aggrieved with the order of acceptance of final form, the petitioner filed a revision vide Cr.Revision No.232 of 2000 on the plea that without giving notice to the petitioner, who was informant/complainant, the learned Magistrate has accepted the final form. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice was ever served on the informant/complainant. However, learned Sessions Judge has rejected the revision petition preferred by the petitioner. 4. Aggrieved with the order of rejection of Cr.Revisoin no.232 of 2000 passed by learned Sessions Judge on 14.11.2000, the petitioner approached this court by filing the present petition. The petition was admitted for hearing on 6.12.2001 and after admission of the petition the matter remained pending before this court for a long time and it was heard today. 5. Mr. Arun Kumar Arun, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that both the orders i.e. order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the revisional court are not sustainable in the eye of law. It was submitted that it was mandatory on the part of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to be fully satisfied that notice was served on the petitioner and only, thereafter, he would have proceed to accept the final form 3 Patna High Court The 11th August,2010 Md.S./NAFR but in the present case neither any notice was received by the petitioner/informant nor he was heard and the learned Magistrate, contrary to the settled law, had accepted the final form. 6. I have also heard Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State. 7. Besides, hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, I have also perused the materials available on the record. Without going into the merit of the case, this court is of the view that at this belated stage it would not be proper to interfere with the order of acceptance of the final form which was passed long back on 29.5.2000 and, as such, the court is refrained from interfering with the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of without passing any positive order. (Rakesh Kumar,J.)