AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon. Shri Justice Sujoy Paul
This revision filed u/s 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C is directed against the order passed by Court below dated 16.1.2006 whereby the private respondents were discharged from the complaint proceedings.
Shri Devendra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of complaint and the statements, there was ample material against the respondents and Court below has committed an error of law in discharging the said persons. He read certain portion of the impugned order to demonstrate that prima facie material was available to take cognizance by the Court below and submits that the Court below has committed an error in discharging the respondents.
Per contra, Shri Vijay Dutt Sharma and Shri R.B.S.Tomar, learned counsel appearing for other side submits that in fact petitioner was only aggrieved because his vehicle/motorcycle was not made available to him. He filed a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court which was registered as M.Cr.C. No. 661/05. The said petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. However, liberty was reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the JMFC for the purpose of getting the said motorcycle. Shri V.D.Sharma, learned counsel submits that the petitioner while deposing before the Court has categorically stated in his statement dated 25.2.2005 that he only wants his motorcycle back and does not want any other action against the respondents. The learned counsel submits that the Court below was required to pass a detailed and reasoned order while discharging the respondents. He relied on 2000 (1) SCC (Cri) 302 Kanti Bhadra Shah and another Vs. State of West Bengal. On the basis of the judgment, learned counsel submits that requirement of law is to pass a reasoned and detailed order before discharging the accused and the Court below has passed cogent and reasoned order in consonance with the requirements of law and he supported the order. Shri R.B.S.Tomar, learned counsel for the respondent almost advanced the same nature of arguments and submits that the Court below after marshaling the evidence came to hold that no case for dacoity is made out.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused record.
The Court below while passing the order dated 16.1.2006 has considered and analyzed each and every statement of the witnesses recorded by it. After appreciation of statement of witnesses, the Court below has assigned reasons. This Court is required to examine the decision making process adopted by the Court below. In the opinion of this Court, the Court below has dealt with every aspect of the matter and, therefore, the decision making process adopted by the Court below cannot be found fault with.
Since the petitioner himself made a statement before the Court below that as he has only interested to get the motorcycle back and has not prayed for any further action against the respondents, the Court below has not committed any error in dropping the proceedings against the respondents. It is also stated that the motorcycle in question was sold by the petitioner and thereafter it was further sold to some other person. The document in this regard obtained under the R.T.I. Act, 2005 are filed by Shri V.D.Sharma with the list of documents.
In this view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere in the matter in the revisional jurisdiction. This Court is not required to re-appreciate the evidence as an appellate Court in its revisional jurisdiction. In absence of any illegality which warrants interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction, interference is declined. Petition is dismissed.