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.
The companyplaint was accordingly dismissed.
P.C. before the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi which was dismissed by the High Court by the order impugned in this appeal.
The appellant preferred a petition under Section 482 of Cr.
Statements of the companyplainant and three other witnesses, Anil Bhagti, Ram Prasad and Krishna Mandal were recorded by the Court in support of the companyplaint.
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 numberlegal infirmity in the order directing issue of summons to the accused persons.
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, companytended that since the Chief Judicial Magistrate had numberpower to review his own orders the direction issued by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, was legally erroneous.
The High Court has taken the view that since two Courts below had companycurrently held that a prima facie case under Sections 341, 323 and 506 IPC and Sections 3 i x and 2 vii of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 had been made out against the petitioner appellant herein it was number a fit case in which the proceedings before the Magistrate companyld be quashed.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of his case, the companyplainant 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 companyclusion that a prima facie case had indeed been made out by the companyplainant against the accused.
Summons were accordingly directed to be issued to the accused persons.
S. THAKUR, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of an order passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi whereby a petition under Section 482 Cr.
P.C. filed by the appellant has been dismissed and an order dated 20th March, 2003 passed in Criminal Revision No.229 of 2002 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad upheld.
The companytroversy arises in the following backdrop A companyplaint was filed by the companyplainant respondent No.2 herein before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad against the appellant and one Shri D.B. Raman, Manager of TISCO Jamadoba Colliery, district Dhanbad alleging companymission 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.
