Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 76 (JHR)

Shashi Bhushan Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2007-02-07

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2007
ORDER D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. Petitioner Shashi Bhushan Singh has prayed for invoking inherent powers of this Court for quashing the order dated 17.7.2006 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in G-(Complaint) Case No. 78 of 2006 whereby the learned Court below has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 174, CrPC. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the learned Court below is totally devoid of substance, since Section 174, Cr PC does not constitute any offence either cognizable or non-cognizable and yet, the petitioner has been sought to be prosecuted for the offence which is not existing in law. 3. Brief fact of the case is that in Sessions Trial No. 440 of 1993 pending in the Court of Shri Ramendra Nath Rai, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Hazaribagh, the petitioner was summoned to appear in the Court for recording his deposition, but despite summons, petitioner had failed to appear. The learned trial Court had taken it to be an offence and thereafter the trial Court had proceeded to draw complaint against the petitioner and had forwarded the complaint to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh for putting the petitioner on trial for the offence alleged. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, on perusal of the complaint, proceeded to take cognizance under Section 174, CrPC issuing summon against the petitioner and directing him to appear for facing trial. 4. From perusal of the impugned order dated 17.7.2006 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, it appears that by a detailed order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence purportedly under Section 174, CrPC. Referring to the Section 174, CrPC. it does not relate to any offence whatsoever. It is apparent that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had passed the impugned order without application of judicial mind and in most mechanical manner. 5. Learned Counsel for the State submits that there appears to be typographical error and as per annexure filed to the instant application, which is a copy of the order sheet dated 15.7.2006 of the record of the trial Court, offence indicated therein as Section 174, CrPC. 6. 5. Learned Counsel for the State submits that there appears to be typographical error and as per annexure filed to the instant application, which is a copy of the order sheet dated 15.7.2006 of the record of the trial Court, offence indicated therein as Section 174, CrPC. 6. I am not persuaded by the explanation offered by the learned Counsel for the State that since the impugned order is a detailed order which is recorded in Hindi and the offence for which cognizance was taken, has been repeated twice in the said order as Section 174 Cr PC I am satisfied that the impugned order is totally illegal and is not sustainable. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.7.2006 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in G-(Complaint) Case No. 78 of 2006 is hereby set aside. In the light of the above, no orders need to be passed in the interlocutory application. Application allowed.