The learned CJM heard learned companynsel for the appellants and ordered to strike of their names.
It was alleged that accused persons named in the FIR assaulted the informant and others.
The charge sheet was placed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in short the CJM who by his order dated 15.2.1999 took companynizance of the offence and directed issuance of processes against accused Sheo Kumar Dubey, Harendra Dubey, and appellants Minu Kumari and Runjhun Kumari on the ground that there is a prima facie case against them for the offences punishable u s 341, 323 and 435 read with Section 34 IPC.
The learned CJM also ordered for issuance of summons and made over the case to the companyrt of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class for favour of disposal.
It was further held that the order passed by learned CJM amounted to review.
The order passed by learned CJM was assailed before learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Siwan who set aside the order holding that the learned CJM did number have any power, muchless inherent power to recall or review his order.
The police submitted charge sheet only against Harendra Dubey and Sheo Kumar Dubey.
Factual position in essence is as follows On the written report of informant Dhrup Narain Dubey, father of respondents 2 and 3 case for alleged companymission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 435 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC was registered vide Raghunath Pur P.S. case No.7/99 dated 20.8.1999.
With reference to Section 362 of the Code it was held that the Court is number empowered to alter the judgment save as otherwise provided by the Code or by any other law for the time being in force.
Appellants questioned companyrectness of the order by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code which came to be dismissed on the ground that the Subordinate Court companyld number have recalled its own order under Section 362 of the Code on the pretext that there was companyrection of clerical and arithmetical errors.
Accordingly, the order passed by learned CJM was set aside.
4607 of 2003 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court rejecting the petition filed by the appellants in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code .
However, the police after investigation submitted charge sheet wherein three of the ladies accused were found to be number involved in the case.
