CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23595 OF 2000 ------ In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------- SYED MOSAIYEB HUSSAIN son of Syed Mazhar Hussain, resident of village-Chandanpatti, P.S.-Ashok Paper Mills, Dist.-Darbhanga …… ……Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …… ……Opp.Party. ------- For the petitioner: None For the Opp. Party : Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. ------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR -------- Rakesh Kumar,J. When the case was called out, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. 2. Despite valid service of notice on opposite party no.2, he has not preferred to appear in this case. 3. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has prayed for setting aside the order dated 21.7.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Darbhanga in Cr. Revision No.61 of 2000. By the said order the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Darbhanga had quashed the order dated 28.1.2000 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Darbhanga in G.R. No.2456 of 1998 (T.R. No.600 of 2000) and directed the court below to obtain documents from the informant and send the same to the investigation officer for proper verification and report and, thereafter, if he finds that there are materials for framing of charge, he will frame charge and if he 2 finds that there are no materials for framing of charge he will discharge the accused without being prejudiced that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance in the case. 4. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint vide Complaint Case No.1168 of 1998 disclosing therein that he was running a school and was Secretary of the school in the name and style of Sun-Shine High School, Chandanpatti, Police Station Ashok Paper Mills, Darbhanga. It was alleged that the petitioner was Headmaster of the school since 1994. On inspection, it was found that in the school several students were admitted and the petitioner collected fees from the students without showing such information in the record. It was alleged that the petitioner had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- from the school fund. After filing of the complaint, the same was referred to the police for its registration and investigation and, accordingly, first information report vide Ashok Paper Mills P.S. Case No.26 of 1999 was registered on 8.4.1999 for the offences under sections 461 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After conducting investigation, the police submitted charge- sheet and at the stage of charge a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was rejected on 28.1.2000. Against the order of rejection of discharge petition, the petitioner filed a revision petition vide Cr.Revision No.61 of 2000. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Darbanga set aside the order of rejection of discharge petition. However, remitted back the matter 3 to the learned Magistrate with a direction to direct the investigating officer to obtain relevant records and thereafter proceed with the case. 5. Aggrieved with the order dates 21.7.2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Darbhanga in Cr.Revision No.61 of 2000, the petitioner approached this court by filing the present petition. On 26.9.2001while issuing notice to opposite party no.2, this court directed that in the meantime further proceeding in G.R. Case No.2456 of 1998 (T.R. No.600 of 2000) pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Darbhanga shall remain stayed. Subsequently, on 18.2.2002 this court while admitting the case observed that inspite of service of notice on O.P. No.2, nobody has chosen to appear on his behalf and again notice was issued to opposite party no.2 and it was directed that pending hearing of this application, the interim order passed on 26.9.2001, shall remain operative and the same is still continuing. At the time of hearing, neither learned counsel for the petitioner has appeared nor opposite party no.2 has preferred to enter his appearance. In absence of learned counsel for the parties, I have heard Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 6. I have perused the materials available on the record particularly the impugned order. From the record it appears that a case was instituted against the petitioner on an allegation of misappropriation of fund of the school of opposite party no.2. From the impugned order i.e. order dated 21.7.2000 passed by 4 Patna High Court The 4th August 2010 Md.S./NAFR Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Darbhanga in Cr.Revision No.61 of 2000, it is evident that the police, though did not collect any document had submitted charge-sheet. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Darbhanga also noticed that the supervising officer i.e. Dy S.P. had recorded that the basis of this case was register and document of the school and neither register and document were produced before the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Darbhanga nor the same was produced before the investigating officer but whatever material was found was oral evidence and, accordingly, charge sheet was submitted. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge- IV, Darbhanga has quashed the order of rejection of discharge petition. So far as second part of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Darbhanga i.e. direction to the learned Magistrate for directing the investigating officer to obtain documents is concerned, this court is of the view that the same direction was unwarranted. In the police case such direction was not required to be issued by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- IV, Darbhanga, that too, while hearing a revision petition and exercising his revisional jurisdiction. 7. The court is satisfied that second direction of the order of Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Darbhanga in Cr.Revision No.61 of 2000 was unwarranted and, accordingly, the said portion of the order is set aside and the petition stands allowed. (Rakesh Kumar,J.) 5