IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.1958 of 2011
SMT. NALINI JHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
-----------
2. 27.01.2011. Heard.
The prayer of the petitioner is to
quash the order dated 2.11.2010 passed by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur in
Mithanpura P.S.Case No.72 of 2001. It was
submitted as one of the grounds for seeking
the order that two accused persons are
already facing trial after having been
summoned eight years back and after such a
long gap the police was placing supplementary
chargesheet along with the case diary sending
up the petitioner for trial. It was contended
that truly speaking, there was no material
contained in the supplementary case diary so
as to justifying the passing of the order. It
was contended that no offence could be said
to be made out on perusal of the material
placed before the court. The last contention
was that the court was passing the order in a
mechanical manner without referring to any
part of the case diary, specially, in its
paragraph so as to justifying the requirement
2
of summoning the petitioner.
It may be pointed out that
supplementary case diary is the part of the
main case diary and when a supplementary
chargesheet, as we call it, is filed in cases
in which the police has kept investigation
pending against any accused, the court has to
peruse the main part of the case diary which
could have been submitted earlier while
filing the chargesheet. It may be very
difficult for this court to consider the
whole of the case diary for examining the
correctness or otherwise of the impugned
order, more so, the petitioner has the
opportunity of agitating the point of no
offence made out or there being absolutely no
material justifying the trial of the
petitioner by the court of Sessions when she
is called upon to make upon her submission
under Section 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. It
may be pointed out that no sufficient grounds
for framing a charge or sufficient materials
justifying the inference that an offence
exclusively triable by the court of Sessions
could be held only by making reference to the
materials contained in the case diary. If
3
there is no material then naturally there may
not be any inference raised. If there is no
offence made out or if the complicity of a
person is not indicated on the scale of
sufficiency of materials then no such accused
could be tried by a court of Sessions as may
appear from the very provisions contained in
Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C.
I direct the court of Sessions which
could be hearing the petitioner under
Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. to go
into those details as required to be gone
into regarding the constitution of the
offence or the participation of the
individual like the petitioner and pass the
impugned order.
With the above observations, this
petition is dismissed.
B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha,J.)