Nandlal Mahto vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.—The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 26.6.2008 and order dated 9.2.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Giridih and learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih respectively.

The grievance of the petitioner is that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not taken cognizance and has dismissed the complaint petition filed u/s 203 Cr.P.C. relying upon the letter of the President, Bihar Bhudan Yagya Committee dated 19.4.2002 and observing that they have acted as per direction of the President and that they have not prepared the document for the purpose of cheating and there is no sufficient material on record to proceed against the accused persons. It has been submitted that the said order is illegal and has been passed without considering the specific allegation making out a prima facie case of forging documents by the officials of the Bhudan Yagna Committee.

Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner had assailed the same in Cr. Revision No. 56 of 2007 before learned Sessions Judge, Giridih, but he also did not properly consider the points placed before him and erroneously upheld the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate holding that he has passed the order considering all the relevant aspects and his order is legal and valid and has been passed taking into account the statutory provisions of the authority of Bhudan Yagya Committee, the act of accused No. 1, 2 and 3 stated in the complaint petition does not come in the purview of the offences. Learned Sessions Judge has also erred in dismissing the revision application.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had no authority to look into the document placed before him at the time of enquiry. He has entered into the merit of the case at the enquiry stage and has erroneously come to the finding that no case, as alleged, is made out against the petitioner. Learned revisional court has also committed the same error. The impugned orders are contrary to law and are liable to be set aside by this Court.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as also learned A.P.P. The grounds taken by the petitioner are almost similar to the grounds taken before learned revisional court. Those grounds have been discussed in detail by learned Sessions Judge. He has applied his mind and has dismissed the revision petition. The petitioner cannot raise same point over again only by changing the label of the petition in view of the statutory bar u/s 397(3) Cr.P.C.

So far as the merit is concerned, the Magistrate while dealing with the complaints filed before him cannot confine his consideration only on the statement of the complainant and the witnesses and ignore the documents available in course of enquiry. Learned Magistrate considered the documents, which were called for at the request of the complainant. He found that the allegations made in complaint and the materials available on record do not make out sufficient ground for taking cognizance of any offence and proceeding against the accused persons. I, therefore, find no substance in the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had committed an error in considering the documents available on record and forming an opinion on that basis. Learned Revisional Court has also considered all the relevant aspects and upheld the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.

I find no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.