, the High Court held that once the magistrate noticed the informant's protest petition, it had to be treated as a complaint case. The order on cognizance and summons required no interference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.1150 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-145 Year-2017 Thana- BOCHAHAN District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Ram Shreshtha Sahni S/o Mahendra Sahni, R/o Village- Karanpur Bochahan, P.S.- Bochhan, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner
... ... Opposite Parties 2nd Set
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate Mr. Pravin Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Akhileshwar Dayal, APP For R/No. 2, 3, 4 & 14 : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For R/No. 13,15 & 16 : Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Advocate For R/No. 5 to 12 : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite
7 05-12-2023
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1150 of 2017(7) dt.05-12-2023 2/4
parties.
2 . According to the office note, Opposite Party No. 2 has not appeared through Vakalatnama , but Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel, has entered appearance on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 and submits that he has already filed Vakalatnama .
3 . With consent of the parties, this revision application has been taken up for consideration.
4 . This revision application has been filed on behalf of the informant challenging the order dated 23.09.2017 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Muzaffarpur in G.R. No. 3293 of 2017 by which the learned Magistrate has accepted the charge-sheet/final report submitted by Police and issued process only against those persons in whose favour charge-sheet was submitted, but no process has been issued against the Opposite Party 2nd set for facing trial for the offence under Sections 302/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
5 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, the prayer made in paragraph ‘1’ is not very happily worded, but at this stage, she would make a limited submission to the extent that the informant is aggrieved by
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1150 of 2017(7) dt.05-12-2023 3/4
and dissatisfied with the impugned order, because having noticed that the informant had filed a protest petition and the same was available on the record, the learned Magistrate had not treated the same as a complaint case and proceeded to consider the same. So far as the impugned order inasmuch as it takes cognizance and issues summons to the charge-sheeted accused are concerned, the informant is not aggrieved by that order.
6 . Learned counsel for the opposite parties jointly submit that by the impugned order, the learned A.C.J.M.-II, Muzaffarpur has not dealt with the protest petition, therefore, it is always open for the informant to pursue the same in accordance with law. The impugned order does not debar the informant from seeking his remedy in accordance with law.
7 . Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on going through the impugned order, this Court is of the considered opinion that once the learned Magistrate had noticed that a protest petition is on the record and the same was brought to the notice of the court, the same was required to be dealt with in accordance with law by treating the same as a complaint case.
8 . The impugned order taking cognizance and
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1150 of 2017(7) dt.05-12-2023 4/4
issuing summons to the charge-sheeted accused needs no interference in this case. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue his protest petition in the learned court below in accordance with law.
9 . This application stands disposed of accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
Rishi/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the magistrate was required to treat the filed protest petition as a complaint case once noticed on record.
Whether the revision application challenging the cognizance and issuance of summons required interference.
Ram Shreshtha Sahni
The State of Bihar
Dr. Suresh Lal Sah
Prashant Punj Bharti
Sushant Punj Bharti
Saroj Sahni
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
