Balbir Singh and ors vs Jaspal Kaur and anr.

S.S. Dewan, J.

In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code), Balbir Singh and others have sought to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, dated November 10, 1984, allowing the revision petition filed by Jaspal Kaur complainant.

The facts, in brief are that Jaspal Kaur complainant filed a complaint under Sections 494 and 494/109, Indian Penal Code against Balbir Singh and others and that complaint was dismissed by the SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha, and the accused petitioners were ordered to be discharged. The complainant preferred a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, who on the perusal of the records and hearing the complainant allowed the revision petition, set aside the order of dismissal passed by the trial Magistrate on 18.11.1983 on the ground that the trial Court had not at all referred to the evidence of 4 witnesses of the complainant, namely, Ram Singh, Ajmer Singh, Bhagwan Kaur and Kaka Singh, PWs. before passing the impugned order and thus committed a material illegality in ignoring the material evidence of the complainant and accordingly directed the trial Magistrate to make further enquiry into the complaint and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The accused petitioners are now asking this Court to quash the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to order for further enquiry. The point raised by the learned counsel is not res integra. A similar question arose for decision in Bal Kishan Jain and others v. Indian Overseas Bank and others, 1981 Cr.L.J. 796 and the same was answered in the following terms by a Division Bench of this Court :

"To conclude it must in strictness be held that the words `further enquiry'' in Section 398 do not envisage within it the power to direct that person wrongly discharged be summoned or that a charge be framed against him and he be put on trial. However, such a power of direction is wholly within the ambit of Section 399 read with Section 401(1) of the Code which now is the repository of the larger power vested in the Court of Session. Therefore, a direction of this nature can be legally given thereunder. The answer to the question formulated at the outset, therefore, has to be rendered in the terms aforesaid."

Applying the aforesaid rule it is apparent that the impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala directing the trial Magistrate to make further enquiry into the complaint and to pass a fresh order in accordance with law is, therefore, well within the four corners of Ss. 398 and 399 of the Code. This petition is consequently without merit and is hereby dismissed. The parties, through counsel, are directed to appear before the trial Court on 12.6.1985.