Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 339 (GAU)

Joyjit Bhaduri v. State of Assam

2004-05-14

P.G.AGARWAL

body2004
P.G. AGARWAL, J.— This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of the proceeding in G.R. No. 2142/ 02 arising out of Dispur P.S. Case No. 4877 02, at present pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kamrup, Guwahati. 2. On 07.05.2002, the informant, Dipankar Deb, filed a written FIR alleging house trespass, assault and forcible taking away of Rs. 1,0007- and damage of goods in the shop, Dispur RS. Case No. 487/02 was registered under Sections 448/325/3 79/4277 34 IPC against the two accused petitioners, namely, Joyjit Bhaduri and Janamco Bhaduri. After conclusion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 448/ 325/ 379/427/34 IPC Thereafter, on receipt of summons from the Court, the accused appeared and furnished copies of document under Section 127 Cr. RC. The Court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341/323/34 IPC and when particulars of the offences were explained to the accused persons, vide order dated 01-10-03, the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. 3. In the revision petition, the petitioners have alleged that the offence under Section 323 IPC is non-cognizable under the provisions of the Cr. PC. and, as such, the police had no power and jurisdiction to investigate into the case registered under Section 323 IPC. It is stated that although police had jurisdiction to investigate an offence under Section 448 IPC, but as the learned trial Magistrate has not taken cognizance of the offence under Section 448 IPC, and instead took cognizance of the offence under Section 341 IPC, the entire investigation suffers from illegality. It is also stated that although the offence under Section 341 IPC was explained by the learned Magistrate but the materials on record does not disclose commission of any offence under Section 341 IPC. 4. On perusal of the copy of the FIR, we find that the informant had made specific allegations of house trespass, assault, theft and mischief, and the police accordingly registered a case under the relevant sections of law; however, during investigation no evidence was forthcoming as regards theft and mischief and police thereafter submitted charge-sheet under Section 448/323 IPC. 5. Where an information discloses cognizable as well as non-cognizable offence, police has jurisdiction to investigate the same without prior permission from the Magistrate. 5. Where an information discloses cognizable as well as non-cognizable offence, police has jurisdiction to investigate the same without prior permission from the Magistrate. The law on this point was settled by the Apex Court in the case of Pravin Chandera Mody Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 118 and in the case of Brij Lal Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1969 SC 355 . In Pravin Chandera Mody (Supra), the Apex Court held: "Where the information discloses a cognizable as well as non-cognizable offence, the Police Officer is not debarred from investigating any non-cognizable offence which may arise out of the same facts. He can include the non-cognizable offence in the chargesheet which he presents for a cognizable offence. Police investigated an offence under S. 7 of the Essential Supplies Act along with S. 420, IP Code. The Trial could proceed for the said offence under S. 251 -A, Cr.P. Code and the investigation is valid." 6. The matter was clarified by insertion of Clause (4) of Section 155 Cir PC. which reads as follows: "Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, not withstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable." 7. The matter was considered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 and it was held: "Under the newly introduced Sub-S. (4) to S. 155, Cr.P.C. where a case relates to two offences to which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable and, therefore, under such circumstances the Police officer can investigate such offences with the same powers as he has while, investigating a cognizable offence." 8. In view of the above, we hold that the investigation of the case by the police and subsequent taking of the cognizance of the offence by the trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. There is no merit in this revision and the revision petition accordingly dismissed