Subrata Das vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr

TISCO Jamadoba Colliery, district Dhanbad alleging

commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323,

506 and 384 IPC and Sections 3(1) & (2) (vii) of the

Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989. Statements of the complainant and

three other witnesses, Anil Bhagti, Ram Prasad and Krishna

Mandal were recorded by the Court in support of the

complaint. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, however, came to 3

the conclusion that none of the allegations made against the

accused were proved to be correct to call for action on the

basis thereof. The complaint was accordingly dismissed.

3. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his case, the complainant

filed a revision before the 5th Additional Sessions Judge,

Dhanbad who examined the matter at length including the

evidence on record and came to the conclusion that a prima

facie case had indeed been made out by the complainant

against the accused. The order passed by the Chief Judicial

Magistrate was accordingly set aside and the matter

remanded back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad for

"reviewing the same afresh" after going into the details of

evidence on record and the relevant provisions of law. A

revision was then filed by the accused including the

appellant herein before the High Court of Jharkhand at

Ranchi, in which it was, inter alia, contended that since the

Chief Judicial Magistrate had no power to review his own

orders the direction issued by the 5th Additional Sessions 4

Judge, Dhanbad, was legally erroneous. The High Court,

however, clarified that the directions issued by the 5th

Additional Sessions Judge was a direction for a further

enquiry to be conducted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate

under Section 398 Cr.P.C.

4. When the matter went back to the Chief Judicial

Magistrate he recorded the depositions of the complainant

as also the witnesses afresh and came to the conclusion that

a prima facie case under the provisions referred to above

has been made out against the accused persons. Summons

were accordingly directed to be issued to the accused

persons. Aggrieved whereof the appellant filed a revision

petition before the Additional Sessions Judge which failed

and was dismissed, inter alia, holding that the material on

record before the Court below did make out a prima facie

case against the accused persons and that there was no

legal infirmity in the order directing issue of summons to the

accused persons. The appellant preferred a petition under 5 Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Jharkhand,

Ranchi which was dismissed by the High Court by the order

impugned in this appeal.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, but find

no reason to interfere with the order under challenge. It is

fairly well-settled by a long line of decisions rendered by this

Court that the power vested in the High Court under Section

482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked for quashing an on-going

investigation, complaint or other proceedings only in cases

where either there is legal power to the continuance of the

proceedings such as the absence of a sanction wherever

required or where averments made in the complaint or first

information report even if accepted on their face value do

not constitute an offence or where there is no legal evidence

to support the charge made against the accused. It is also

fairly settled that the powers vested in the High Court under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. have to be exercised sparingly and that

the Court cannot be called upon to appreciate the available 6

evidence or material with a view to find out whether the

charge leveled against the accused stands proved.

6. See Arun Shanker Shukla v. State of U.P. & Ors.

AIR 1999 SC 2554, State of Punjab v. Kasturi Lal & Ors.

2004 Crl.L.J. 3866, State of Karnataka v. M.

Devendrappa and Anr. (2002) 3 SCC 89 and Central

Bureau of Investigation v. K.M. Sharan 2008 (4) SCC

471, State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992

Suppl. 1 SCC 335 and R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab

(1960) 3 SCR 388.

7. A plain reading of the complaint filed by the

complainant in the instant case makes out a case against

the accused. Not only that the depositions of the three

witnesses examined by the complainant in support of his

complaint also support the allegations made in the

complaint. The Magistrate was, therefore, justified in taking

cognizance against the appellant and the co-accused. The 7

Revisional Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, was

also correct in holding that a case for issue of process has

been made out. Such being the position the High Court

committed no error in declining to interfere under Section

482 of Cr.P.C. nor is there any reason for us much less a

compelling one to take a view different from the one taken

by the High Court.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

Chief Judicial Magistrate had committed an error in recalling

the witnesses and examining them afresh after the matter

was remanded back to him for further enquiry. It was

contended that the direction for a further enquiry could not

be taken to mean that the Magistrate had to record afresh

the depositions of the witnesses already examined before

him. In as much as the Magistrate had done so in the

present case he committed a mistake that was sufficient to

vitiate the order passed by him. Support was drawn by the

learned counsel from a Single Bench's decision of the High 8

Court of Punjab & Haryana in Gurdial Singh v. Kartar

Singh and Ors. 1980 Crl. L.J. 955.

9. The matter as noticed by us earlier had been remanded

back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to hold a further

enquiry. That direction did not necessarily oblige the

Magistrate to record any further evidence in the case. The

nature of the inquiry was in the discretion of the Magistrate

which may or may not have included recording of further

evidence on behalf of the complainant. The Magistrate could

without recording any further evidence in the matter

reappraise the averments made in the complaint and the

material already on record to determine whether a prima

facie case was made out against the accused persons. In as

much as the Magistrate in the instant case summoned the

witnesses and examined them afresh, he may have gone

beyond what was legally necessary to do but that is no

reason to hold that the recording of evidence by the

Magistrate as a part of the further enquiry directed by the

High Court would vitiate the proceedings before him or the 9

conclusion drawn on the basis of any such enquiry. So long

as the Magistrate was satisfied that a prima facie case had

been made out, he was competent to issue summons to the

accused. All told, the alleged error sought to be pointed out

by the appellant is not of a kind that would persuade us to

interfere with the proceedings at this stage. In the result this

appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

.................................J. (MARKANDEY KATJU)

.................................J. (T.S. THAKUR) New Delhi October 22, 2010