IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.1613 of 2008
Nandlal Mahto ......... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .......... Opp. Parties.
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, Advocate
For the State : Mr. R.S. Singh, A.P.P.
------
03/09.09.2009
: The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated
26.6.2008 and order dated 9.2.2007 passed by learned Sessions
Judge, Giridih and learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih
respectively.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate has not taken cognizance and has dismissed the
complaint petition filed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. relying upon
the letter of the President, Bihar Bhudan Yagya Committee
dated 19.4.2002 and observing that they have acted as per
direction of the President and that they have not prepared the
document for the purpose of cheating and there is no sufficient
material on record to proceed against the accused persons. It
has been submitted that the said order is illegal and has been
passed without considering the specific allegation making out a
prima facie case of forging documents by the officials of the
Bhudan Yagna Committee.
3. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner had assailed
the same in Cr. Revision No. 56 of 2007 before learned Sessions
Judge, Giridih, but he also did not properly consider the points
placed before him and erroneously upheld the order of learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate holding that he has passed the order
considering all the relevant aspects and his order is legal and
valid and has been passed taking into account the statutory
provisions of the authority of Bhudan Yagya Committee, the act
of accused No. 1, 2 and 3 stated in the complaint petition does
not come in the purview of the offences. Learned Sessions
Judge has also erred in dismissing the revision application.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had no authority to
look into the document placed before him at the time of
-2-
enquiry. He has entered into the merit of the case at the enquiry
stage and has erroneously come to the finding that no case, as
alleged, is made out against the petitioner. Learned revisional
court has also committed the same error. The impugned orders
are contrary to law and are liable to be set aside by this Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also
learned A.P.P. The grounds taken by the petitioner are almost
similar to the grounds taken before learned revisional court.
Those grounds have been discussed in detail by learned Sessions
Judge. He has applied his mind and has dismissed the revision
petition. The petitioner cannot raise same point over again only
by changing the label of the petition in view of the statutory bar
under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.
6. So far as the merit is concerned, the Magistrate while
dealing with the complaints filed before him cannot confine his
consideration only on the statement of the complainant and the
witnesses and ignore the documents available in course of
enquiry. Learned Magistrate considered the documents, which
were called for at the request of the complainant. He found that
the allegations made in complaint and the materials available
on record do not make out sufficient ground for taking
cognizance of any offence and proceeding against the
accused persons. I, therefore, find no substance in the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had committed an error in
considering the documents available on record and forming an
opinion on that basis. Learned Revisional Court has also
considered all the relevant aspects and upheld the order of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.
7. I find no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly,
dismissed.
(Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.)
Shamim/