IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.113 of 2006 SRIKANT RAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR, VIDHYADHAR SINGH, JAGMOHAN SHARMA AND RAMA SHANKAR KAAHAR ----------- 8 20.04.2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The instant revision application is directed against order dated 28.10.2005, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No. IV, Kaimur Bhabua in Cr revision no. 61 of 2004/34 of 2005, by which he has set aside order dated 27.2.2004, passed by the JM, Ist Class, Kaimur in Compliant case no. 906 of 2003, by which he has taken cognizance of offence against the private opp parties under section 323 I.P.C. and section 3(X) of the SC and ST Act. Petitioner is the complainant of complaint case no. 906 of 2003. After enquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C., learned magistrate took cognizance under section 323 I.P.C. and the SC & ST Act. The petitioner being aggrieved, moved Cr Revision application before the Sessions court. The Sessions court by order dated 28.10.2005 set aside order dated 28.10.2005 so far as offence under section SC & STAct is concerned. Grievance of the petitioner is that while setting aside orders of the cognizance under the SC STAct, learned court below has considered some of the documents produced by the accused side, which is not permissible in view of decision of the Apex court in case of Chandra Deo Singh Vs the state of Bihar, reported in 1963 SC 1442. - 2 - Learned counsel for opp parties submits that the petitioner is guilty of suppressing material facts from the court. In support of his contention he submits that the complainant had earlier filed similar type of complaint case against the petitioner bearing complaint case no. 466 of 2003, in which cognizance was taken only under section 323,504 I.P.C. A revision preferred by this petitioner for adding offence SC & ST Act was also dismissed. He submits that the petitioner thus has suppressed very relevant materials from the court. The issue before this Court is whether the order passed by the Sessions judge in the revision application is sustainable, and action, if any, can be taken against the informant for suppressing material facts. So far the first issue is concerned, it is well established that at time of taking cognizance materials which are not on record cannot be looked into. Thus in my view, the Sessions judge erred in law by taking into consideration materials which were not on record at time of taking cognizance, and were filed and produced by the accused opposite parties in Revision preferred before Sessions judge against order taking cognizance. As such the impugned order dated 28.1.2005, passed by revisional court is set aside. So far as the issue, that the petitioner had suppressed material fact that earlier in almost similar complaint filed by him against opp parties, cognizance was taken only under section - 3 - 323 I.P.C. is concerned, it will be open to the petitioner to file appropriate application in this respect, before appropriate forum. In view of the aforesaid facts, the revision application is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the Sessions court for fresh consideration. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, whether any case under the SC & ST Act is made out or not. Till the disposal of revision application, no coercive action would be taken against opp parties as above. Shashi. (S.P.Singh,J).