The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that if a second criminal revision is filed in the garb of a petition invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the same is not to be entertained.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the complaint was filed by the Petitioner in which it was alleged that accused no. 1 directed the accused no. 2 who is the acting assistant not to send any information to the complainant and upon the instruction of the proposed accused no. 1, the proposed accused nos.2, 3 and 4 entered forcibly in the residential house of the complainant and assaulted him and also instructed him to receive the copy of the original document after counting and to acknowledge receiving the said documents. The complaint was filed under Sections 166, 193, 323, 325, 420, 442, 466, 468, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The same was dismissed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under section 203 CrPC upon recording reasons that there is no prima facie material in the record to constitute the offenses. Thereafter, the criminal revision was filed and the same was dismissed. Therefore, the present petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner contended that the order passed by the learned CJM was biased and erroneous order. It was contended that there exists no provision for supplying the information sought under the Right to Information Act, physically by sending messenger at the residence of the petitioner. The Petitioner relied upon the judgments titled Chief Information Commissioner vs. High Court of Gujarat & Anr., and Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
Contentions of the State:
The state contended that the criminal revision was filed and the same was dismissed and now this second criminal revision in the garb of a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. It was furthermore contended that the Petitioner is in a habit of filing frivolous litigation against high-ranking officers with the sole objective of harassing them.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that a second criminal revision will not be allowed if it is submitted as a petition invoking the High Court's inherent power as stated in section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The court noted that even if all allegations made in the complaint, a statement on a solemn affirmation of the complainant, and the statements of the inquiry witnesses, even if are considered to be true, still the offences alleged in the complaint are not made out against the proposed accused persons of the complaint.
The court furthermore noted that the information sought by him under the Right to Information Act had been sent to him by messenger delivering the required documents in person, instead of the same being sent to the petitioner through the Postal Service. However, the same will not constitute any offence punishable by any law.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate requires no interference.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition.
Case Title: Hari Nandan Singh V. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Cr.M.P. No. 1588 of 2023
Advocate for the State: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
Advocate for the Opp Party: Mr. Navneet Toppo, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
