AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the parties.
This is an application seeking quashing of the Judgment/order dated 02.11.2018, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Cr. Revision No.218 of 2017 arising out of Complaint Case No.2161 of 2012, TR. No.442 of 2017, by which the petition of petitioner for direction to the learned court below to send the record of the case to the Special Court for trial under SC/ST Act has been rejected.
It appears out of submission that petitioner earlier lodged a case, which was registered as Hajipur SC/ST P.S. Case No.41 of 2011 against O.P. Nos.2 and 3, on the basis of written application of petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x)(v) of the SC/ST Act and Sections 323, 541, 504 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
After investigation, police submitted closure report/final form against opposite parties which was also accepted by the learned jurisdictional magistrate.
Against the aforesaid closure, the petitioner has filed a protest petition in the court of learned C.J.M., Muzaffarpur against Radheshyam Bhagat and Ram Umed Bhagat (opposite parties), saying that they both surrounded him on 31.01.2011 at about 4:00 pm near Panapur Chowk, and assaulted him and also abused him by taking his caste name in the presence of witnesses. The said protest-cum-complaint petition was registered as complaint case no.2161 of 2012.
After enquiry, the learned jurisdictional magistrate took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 323/504 of the Indian Penal Code against opposite parties, and being aggrieved with same as no cognizance was taken under SC/ST Act, a revision petition was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur which has been registered as Cr. Revision No.218 of 2017.
Through aforesaid criminal revision, the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur also approved the cognizance order taken by the learned jurisdictional magistrate, and dismissed the Cr. Revision petition as preferred by the petitioner. Being aggrieved with, the present quashing petition was filed saying the order passed through Cr. Rev. No.218 of 2017 as passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur dated 02.11.2018 is perverse and bad in eyes of law and, therefore, same is fit to be set aside/quashed by exercising inherent power of this court as available under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
In the aforesaid context, it would be apposite to reproduce the para 5 of the impugned order dated 02.11.2018 passed in Cr. Revision for better understanding of the case which reads as under:-
“5.A perusal of the L.C.R. goes to show that initially, case was registered as Hajipur SC/ST P.S. Case No.41/2011, u/ss 341,323,504,379 IPC and 3(I)(X)(V) SC/ST Act on the basis of written application of petitioner against the O.P. Nos.2 and 3. The police during course of investigation did not find accusation true against the accused and accordingly, submitted final form. The learned court below accepted the final form and thereafter, case proceeded on the basis of protest-cum-complaint petition filed by petitioner during course of investigation. During course of inquiry, five witnesses were examined on behalf of petitioner, who of course supported the case of petitioner but I find that the dispute arose due to some land dispute and the witnesses have deposed by exaggerating the facts. The witnesses did not disclose as to which type of abusive language was used by the accused persons and considering all these facts, the learned court below has rightly refused to send the record to Spl. Court, S.C/S.T. Act finding no material of S.C./S.T. Act. I do not find any irregularity in the order impugned and the order is well within ambit of law and it does not require any interference of this court in its revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, this criminal revision application stands dismissed as devoid of any merit.”
There is no bar to prefer quashing petition against order of Criminal Revision as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court available through Kailash Verma Versus Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation and Anr. [ (2005) 2 SCC 571]. Until and unless in Kailash Verma case (supra), if it appears perverse, perpetuating the abuse of process of court of law.
It appears that the impugned order was passed supplying due reasons while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner through Cr. Revision and, therefore, same cannot be said perverse. Therefore, the present quashing petition is amounting to second criminal revision for the same cause which is barred in view of Section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C.
With aforesaid, this Court find no merit in present quashing petition, therefore, the same stands dismissed.
Let the copy of judgment be communicated to the learned trial court forthwith, with TCR, if any.