Kameshwar Mahto Son of Shri Nand Lal Mahto vs The State of Bihar

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the State.

This application under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (for short '' Cr.P.C .'') has been filed by the

petitioner for quashing the order dated 17.09.2016 passed by the

learned Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Cr. Revision No. 351 of 2016

whereby the revision application filed by the petitioner has been

rejected and the order dated 28.06.2016 passed by the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga has been affirmed.

By the aforesaid order dated 28.06.2016, the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga had taken cognizance of the

offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 420, 465 and 471 of

the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner after perusal of the

police report submitted under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. in

connection with Darbhanga (Sadar) P. S. Case No. 484 of 2014.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that the allegations made in the first information report do not attract

the ingredients of any cognizance offence and, in that view of the

matter, filing of the charge-sheet by the police in Darbhanga (Sadar)

P. S. Case No. 484 of 2014 as also taking of cognizance by the

learned Magistrate is bad in law.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

informant submitted that the instant application though filed under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., is in the nature of second revision, which

is barred under Section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C. He also submitted that

subsequent to the impugned order dated 17.09.2016 passed in Cr.

Revision No. 351 of 2016, charges have already been framed and the

trial has proceeded.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully

perused the record.

The allegations made in the first information report do

attract the ingredients of a cognizable offence. On completion of

investigation, the police found the allegation made against the

petitioner to be true and submitted charge-sheet. On perusal of the

first information report, the statements of witnesses recorded under

Section 161(3) of the Cr.P.C. and the police report submitted under

Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate took cognizance of

the offences and also summoned the petitioner to face trial. The

order passed by the learned Magistrate was challenged in revision,

which was also dismissed by the learned Session Judge. I find force

in the submission of learned counsel for the informant that the

present application is in the form of second revision, which is barred

under Section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, I do not see any

perversity in the order passed by the revisional court.

In that view of the matter, I see no merit in this

application. It is dismissed, accordingly.