Brajnandan Singh vs The State of Bihar and Anil Kumar Singh

Rakesh Kumar, J.—The sole Petitioner, who is an accused in Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 127 of 2005 , has approached this Court, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash an order dated 30.7.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the Misc. Petition No. 127 of 2007, which was filed by the Investigating Officer of the case for granting permission to re-investigate the case.

Short fact of the case is that the Petitioner was made an accused in Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 127 of 2005 for committing offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged by the informant that the Petitioner on giving false assurance for providing employment to the informant had taken Rs. 50, 000/- and, accordingly, it was alleged that the informant was cheated by the Petitioner. After registering the F.I.R., the police investigated the case and thereafter chargesheet was submitted. It appears from the impugned order that after submission of the chargesheet , cognizance order was passed and the case was transferred to the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad for trial and disposal of the case. Subsequent to the order of cognizance, the Investigating Officer filed a petition for granting permission to re-investigate the case. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate assigning a detailed reason has rejected the petition filed by the Investigating Officer. Despite the fact that the Petitioner was having no locus standi for challenging the said order, it appears that with a view to delay the trial in the case, the Petitioner filed the present petition, which was admitted on 12.12.2008. In course of argument, it was submitted by Sri Yogendra Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner that after the impugned order was passed, charge has already been framed and one witness was already examined. However, no reasonable progress could take place,despite the fact that summons had already been issued for securing attendance of the witnesses. It was also admitted by Sri Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner that pendency of the present case was also one of the reasons for non-disposal of the case.

After perusal of the impugned order, the Court is satisfied that the learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the petition filed by the Investigating Officer. I do not find any ground for interference with the impugned order that too on a petition which was filed by accused, who is facing trial in Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 127 of 2005.

Accordingly, the petition stands rejected.

Since the matter is old one, it is necessary to direct the trial court to proceed with the case expeditiously , so that the case may come to its logical end without any further delay.