Rameshwar Oraon vs State of Jharkhand and Others

Amareshwar Sahay, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.

The petitioner/complainant has challenged the order dated 22/12/2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, PaUunau at Daltonganj, dismissing the complaint case No. 701/2000 u/s 203 Cr. P.C. as well as the order dated 11/02/2003, passed by the Sessions Judge, dismissing the criminal revision No. 4/2001, which was filed against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

A complainat case was filed by the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 6, who were the then B.D.O., Junior Engineer, Cooperative Supervisor, Agent and Treasurer alleging therein that they defalcated the Government money amounting to Rs. 3,90,000/- by giving work of filling of road to their own men ignoring all the legal formalities and, thereby, committed the offence under Sections 147, 409, 466, 468 and 471 IPC.

After registering the complaint, the chief Judicial Magistrate, ordered enquiry to be conducted by the S.D.O., Sadar, Daltonganj to know about the truth of the allegations made by the complainant/petitioner against the accused persons. The S.D.O., reported to the Magistrate that the allegations were maliciously untrue and baseless and as a matter of fact Rs. 3, 60,000/- were spent for the scheme, i.e. for construction of road but the actual work was done of Rs. 3, 65,000/-, i.e. more than the money spent.

The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after considering the report of the S.D.O., Sadar, dismissed the complaint holding that the complaint is baseless, vexatious and malicious and it was filed for the purpose of harassing the accused and, therefore, it was not required to be sent to the police for lodging F.I.R. nor there was any necessity to proceed further in the matter.

Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal of the complaint, the complainant, filed revisions before the Sessions Judge, which was also dismissed by the Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated 11/02/2003.

Mr. Kashyap, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the same points, which were raised before the Sessions Judge and submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has committed illegality in dismissing the complaint on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the S.D.O., Sadar without even examining the complainant on solemn affirmation. According to Mr. Kashyap, it was incumbent upon the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to first examine the complainant on solemn affirmation and, thereafter, he could have sent the case for enquiry to the S.D.O. He could not have sent for enquiry without examination of the complainant on solemn affirmation and, therefore, the whole procedure adopted by the Chief .Judicial Magistrate was illegal and on this ground alone the impugned order dismissing the complaint i3 liable to be set; aside.

I find that the learned Sessions Judge has fully discussed the points, raised by Mr. Kashyap in his impugned order and after considering the relevant provisions, i.e. Sections 200, 202 and 203 Cr.P.C. has held that non-examination of the complainant on solemn affirmation was neither fatal nor illegal rather it was a curable defect.

The learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that the Magistrate may, on receipt of the complaint of which lie was authorized to take cognizance, postpone the issue of process against the accused persons and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other persons as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding under the provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, if the complainant was not examined by the Magistrate, he was not precluded from getting the matter enquired or investigated into. The learned Sessions Judge has further rightly held that Section 202 Cr.P.C. lays down that after considering the statement on oath, if any, of the complainant, i.e. the Statements u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and of the witnesses and the result of enquiry and investigation, if any, u/s 202 Cr.P.C. if the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismissed the complaint. Therefore, the examination of the complainant on solemn affirmation u/s 200 Cr.P.C. or the examination of the witnesses was not must for the Chief Judicial Magistrate for dismissal of the complaint u/s 203 Cr.P.C.

In this view of the matter, I find that the learned Courts below have not committed any illegality in dismissing the complaint case on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the S.D.O. Consequently, having found no merit, this application is dismissed.