CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3552 OF 2001 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ------------- 1.Mahendra Mandal , Son of Shanti Mandal, resident of Village- Mungraura, Police Station-East Colony Jamalpur, District-Munger 2. Narayan Prasad, Son of Ruplal Mandal, resident of Village- Nayagaon, Police Station-East Colony Jamalpur, District-Munger ---------------Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Shobha Kumari, daughter of Malik Mandal, resident of Village- Mungraura, Police Station-East Colony, Jamalpur, District-Munger -------------------------Opp.Parties. ----------- For the petitioners: S/Sri T.N.Maitin, Sr.Advocate Rajeev Kumar Sinha, and Ramadhar Singh, Advocates For the State: Smt. Anita Kumari Singh, A.P.P. --------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 09.08.2000 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Munger in Criminal Revision No.109 of 2000 and also consequential order i.e. order dated 23.11.2000 passed by Sri Murlidhar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Munger in complaint case No. 28 (c) of 1998. 2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party No.2 adopted daughter of one Malik Mandal, who was also uncle of petitioner No.1, filed a complainant in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Munger, which was numbered as complainant case No. 92 (c) of 1995, against both the petitioners on an allegation that petitioner No.1 along 2 with petitioner No.2 pretending himself as husband of complainant had obtained transfer certificate in respect of complainant from Achhu Ram Balika Ucha Vidyalaya. It was alleged that only with a view to harass the complainant, accused persons had taken transfer certificate of the complainant from the school of the complainant. The said complaint was subsequently referred to the police on 25.09.1995 under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for its registration and investigation and thereafter an F.I.R. vide Jamalpur P.S. Case No.68 of 1996 was registered on 7.6.1996 for the offences under Sections 204,420, 424 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. However, after thoroughly investigating the case, the police on 30.7.1996 submitted final report showing the case to be untrue. After more than one year from the date of the filing of the final report, the complainant filed a protest- cum- Complaint petition on 3.12.1997. The said complaint was numbered as Complaint Case No.28C of 1998. In the complaint petition, an enquiry was conducted and after conducting enquiry, the learned Magistrate by its order dated 31.3.2000 dismissed the same under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Against the order of rejection of the complaint petition, the complainant preferred a revision vide Cr.Revision No.109 of 2000 and the learned Sessions Judge, Munger by its order dated 09.08.2000 allowed the revision petition and directed the learned court below to make further enquiry . After the order was passed by the revisional court, by the impugned order, i.e. order dated 23.11.2000, Sri Murlidhar , Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Munger, took cognizance of offence under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code. 3 3. Aggrieved with the order of revisional court as well as order of cognizance, both the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition, which was admitted on 26.9.2002. At the stage of admission, despite valid service of notice, Opp.Party no.2 preferred not to appear. While admitting, this Court directed that interim order passed on 31.01.2002 shall continue during the pendency of this application. The order of stay is still continuing. 4. Even at the time of hearing, none has appeared on behalf of Opp.Party no.2, whereas she has already entered her appearance through Advocate. 5. Sri Rajeev Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners , while challenging both the orders, has argued that once the complaint petition was rejected by the learned Magistrate after examining the materials available on record, the learned Sessions Judge, Munger had committed a serious error by setting aside the order of rejection of complaint case. It has further been submitted that the order of cognizance is void due to the reason that the learned Magistrate in its order dated 23.11.2000 itself had indicated that he had taken cognizance only on the basis of order passed in revision case. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that falsity of the complaint was proved during the investigation of the case by the statutory Investigating Agency, which was further corroborated by way of rejection of the protest-cum- complaint petition by order dated 31.3.2000. It has alternatively been argued that on an allegation of such trivial nature, which had taken place as alleged by the complainant on 19.12.1994, it would not be appropriate to direct the petitioners to 4 participate in the said case in the year 2010, i.e. after lapse of more than 16 years from the alleged date of the occurrence. On the aforesaid grounds, it has been prayed to quash both the aforesaid orders. 6. Smt. Anita Kumari Singh, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appears on behalf of the State. 7. Besides hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and the State, I have also perused the materials available on record. The allegation, which was made by the complainant, was earlier thoroughly investigated by the police and thereafter final form was submitted on 30.7.1996. In the case, it was alleged that occurrence had taken place in the month of December, 1994. Keeping in view the fact that there were no material on record , the learned Magistrate after conducting enquiry had rightly rejected the complaint petition by its order dated 31.3.2000. In such a situation, it was not required for the learned Sessions Judge to interfere with the order. However, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition preferred by the complainant against the order of rejection of complaint petition and thereafter order of cognizance was passed in the present case on 23.11.2000. The order of cognizance itself indicates that the learned Magistrate had passed order of cognizance in view of order passed by the revisional court. This shows complete non- application of mind. Moreover, while allowing the revision petition, the learned Sessions Judge had directed to conduct further enquiry. From the impugned orders, it is clear that after the order of the revisional court, no further enquiry was conducted and on the same materials, the impugned order of cognizance was passed. 8. Keeping in view the fact of the present case, particularly the 5 alleged occurrence, which had taken place in the year 1994, the Court, is satisfied that it is a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, order dated 9.8.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Munger in Cr.Revision No.109 of 2000 and consequential order dated 23.11.2000 passed by Sri Murlidhar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Munger in Complaint Case No.28C of 1998 as well as entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. 28C of 1998 are hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed. Patna High Court,Patna Dated: the 21st September,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)