Jageshar Bhagat vs The State of Bihar and Others

P.K. Deb, J.—This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 28.2.2001 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalgunj, in Complaint Case No. 173/2000 whereby and whereunder after holding the enquiry u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure. the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has dismissed the complaint holding that no prima facie case has been established against the accused persons rather a false case has been filed by the complainant for establishing his right over the Gairmazrua land.

The case of the complainant-Petitioner was that during the date of occurrence at about 5 P.M. all the accused persons came alongwith a Tractor and started breaking the soil house of the complainant-Petitioner on the Gairmazrua land and took away all his belongings and household materials and when objected to, the Circle Officer and the Chowkidar instead of giving protection to the Petitioner had taken him to the Police custody. But he was released on the next day.

During the course of enquiry, although, four witnesses were named, only two witnesses were examined for and on behalf of the prosecution. There is variation over the allegation in the complaint petition regarding bringing the Tractor and the quantum of amount of damages by the complainant himself. His witnesses had also differed from each other. The O.P. No. 2 admittedly had claimed over the Gairmazrua land and the same had culminated in the filing of the complaint. The complainant failed to show his claim over the Gairmazrua land or his possession thereof. During the course of enquiry while the court below had come to find out a prima-facie case put questions to the witnesses and then a case-had been revealed that it was nothing but a case for showing some right of the complainant over the Gairmazrua land.

This learned Counsel for the Petitioner has strenuously argued that on the stage of taking cognizance the court has got no scope to scrutinize the evidence on record as done during the course of trial. He has to find out the relevancy of statement made by the witnesses during the course of enquiry culminating in the establishment of a prima facie case for taking cognizance under the penal provision.

I do not find it after going through the photocopies of the statement of the witnesses and in the impugned order itself that the learned court below had taken burden in scrutinising the evidence on record. Rather, on the face of the statement of the witnesses the falsity of the case had come out. Moreover, public servants have been made accused persons in the case. But no sanction is there against them. It appears that for saving the skin of the complainant regarding trespassing over the gairmazarua land or claiming thereof this case has been made out.

I do not find that the learned court below has committed any error in the impugned order in disposing the complaint rather if cognizance would have been taken the same would be an abuse of the processes of the court.

This revision petition is, thus, rejected in limine having no force.