Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 877 (JHR)

Ram Chandra Dubey v. State of Jharkhand

2008-08-05

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2008
Order Heard the parties. 2. Though in this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal prosecution and the order taking cognizance dated 3.5.2007 for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 504, 506 and 307/34 IPC but at the time of argument, Mr. Tripathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners stated that the petitioners are confining their prayer for quashing only with a regard to the offence under Section 307 IPC. 3. Mr. Tripathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that for one and the same offence, two first information reports were lodged, one against the petitioners at the instance of Ashok Tiwary, which was registered as Rehala P.S. Case No. 37/2006 for the offence under Sections 341, 342, 323, 324, 307, 379, 504/34 IPC and the other FIR lodged by Shashi Shekar Dubey, petitioner no. 2 herein, against the informant party which was registered as Rehala P.S. Case No. 38/2006 for the offence under Sections 147,148,149,341,343, 324, 307, 379 and 504 IPC. 4. After investigation of the case, the police submitted charge sheet under Section 341, 323, 324, 325, 504/34 I PC in Rahala P.S. Case No. 37/2006 i.e. the case lodged against the petitioners whereas charge sheet under Sections 147, 148, 149,323, 504, 337, 506, 408 was submitted in Rehala P.S. Case No. 38/2006 against the informant parties. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the charge-sheet submitted by the police against these petitioners there was no mention of Section 307 IPC but the learned Magistrate has wrongly and illegally taken cognizance for the offence under Section 307 IPC also against the petitioners though there was no materials at all available for taking cognizance for the offence under Section 307 IPC. 6. From the impugned order taking cognizance, I find that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, while taking cognizance of the offence perused the materials in the case diary as well as the injury report and then found from the case diary that Ram Kumari Devi had received six injuries out of which one was grievous in nature, similarly, Ashok Tiwary had received six injuries out of which two were on his head and Satyanarayan Tiwary, the other injured, had received five injuries on his person, out of which one was on his head. The learned Magistrate considering the above facts as well as considering the statements of the witnesses, examined during investigation arid found that prima facie case under Section 307 was made out, though the Investigating Officer did not submit charge sheet for the said offence. Accordingly, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after application of his mind, has taken cognizance of the offences including Section 307 IPC. 7. Nothing has been shown as to how and why the order taking cognizance of the offence under Section 307 is bad in law. Only because the police did not submit charge sheet for the offence under Section 307 IPC that does not mean that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate could not have taken cognizance under Section 307 IPC when he found that the materials available in the case diary to make out a prima facie case for commission of the offence under Section 307 IPC. 8. In my view, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not committed any illegality or irregularity in taking cognizance of the offence under Section 307 IPC. Accordingly, having found no merit, this application is dismissed.