IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2749 of 2008 NARAYAN YADAV, SON OF LATE MAHABIR YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SHANKARPUR, P.S. KURSA KANTA, DISTRICT- ARARIA……………………………………………………...PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SHAKUNTALA DEVI, WIFE OF SATYA NARAYAN YADAV. 3. SANJAY YADAV, SON OF SATYA NARAYAN YADAV. 4. ANUJ YADAV, SON OF SATYA NARAYAN YADAV. 5. PAPPU YADAV, SON OF SATYA NARAYAN YADAV. ALL 2 TO 5 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SHANKARPUR, P.S. KURSA KANTA, DISRTICT-ARARIA. …………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 3. 14.1.2009. Heard Sri Bhola Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Md. Mustaq Alam, the learned A.P.P. for the State and Sri Girish Prasad Gupta, the learned counsel for O.P. Nos.2 to 5. The petitioner who happens to be the informant of Kursa Kanta P.S. Case No.61 of 2003 has preferred this application for quashing of the order dated 27.7.2007 passed in Criminal Revision No.22 of 2006 by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Araria, whereby while dismissing the revision application, he has affirmed the order dated 25.5.2006 passed in the aforesaid P.S. Case by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria, whereunder while accepting the final form submitted by the police against the accused, he has disposed of the protest petition. The operative part of the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria, is quoted hereunder: “Perused the case diary and other material on the record. There appears to be no Eye witness of the occurrence and all the - 2 - statements of witnesses are based on surmises and conjectures. Considered the material available on the record the Final Form submitted against the above named accused is accepted. The protest petition is accordingly disposed of.” I am unable to understand what the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate meant by saying the protest petition is accordingly disposed of. If he has accepted the final form he was duty bound to proceed with the protest petition as a complaint case and that is what the law prescribes. I also fail to understand the reasonings of the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Araria, in approving the said order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Apparently both the courts appear to be ignorant of the procedural law and have acted in excess of jurisdiction vested in them. In the result, both the orders of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as also the Revisional Court are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, the application is allowed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)