Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 569 (JHR)

Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2011-06-29

D.K.SINHA

body2011
JUDGMENT D.K. Sinha, J.- The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of the order impugned dated 7.11.2009 by which the CJM. Dhanbad took the cognizance of the offence under Sections 147/149/341/323/324/ 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and other accused in Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. case No. 669 of 2008. corresponding to GR No. 2904 of 2008 and transferred the record to the me of Shri Pawan Kumar. Judicial Magistrate. Dhanbad to proceed against the accused. 2. The informant Krishna Nandan Sao presented a written report before Dhansar Police Station. Dhanbad on 29.9.2008 alleging inter alia that on 29.9.2008 at about 9 a.m. while he was standing on his land with his son situated at Gandhi Road in the meantime a number of accused persons in the leadership of the petitioner Ashok Kumar Singh came there and started removing the boulders which was put on his land there. On the protest there being raised by the informant it was alleged that the petitioner and one Om Prakash Mandal lifted him and pushed him down on the road with the intention to commit his murder. Similar act was also committed by the other accused Ajit Kumar and Vikash Kumar who attempted to commit murder of the son of the informant, namely. Ravi Shankar. The other sons of the informant namely. Amit Kumar and Manish Kumar and his wife who arrived there were also assaulted by the other accused by means of iron rod stick and spade as a result of which they sustained injuries. One of the miscreants inflicted injury on the head a Manish son of the informant by means of the butt of his pistol. A case was registered on the written complaint giving rise to Dhansar P.S. Case No. 669 of 2008. 3. Learned senior counsel Mr Jai Prakash submitted that the occurrence as alleged by the informant did not take place in the manner presented by him. After institution of the case the Investigating Officer investigated the case and found the allegation not true as against the petitioner and therefore submitted charge-sheet exonerating the criminal liability of the petitioner specifically mentioning that there was no material to find involvement of the petitioner Ashok Kumar Singh in the alleged offence and therefore, charge sheet was submitted only against Mukesh Kumar. Vikas Kumar, Om Prakash Mandal, Ajit Kumar and Ganesh Singh (Annexure-2. On the receipt of charge-sheet a notice was issued to the Investigating Officer to which Investigating Officer reported that involvement of the petitioner was not found there in the alleged offence and therefore chargesheet was submitted against rest of the accused persons and not against the petitioner but the learned CJM by the impugned order dated 7.11.2009 took the cognizance of the offence as aforesaid against the petitioner also without disclosing and explaining the reasons as to how he differed from the charge-sheet and the report of the Investigating Officer learned senior counsel Mr. Jai Pakash added. 4. I find from the perusal of the impugned order dated 7.11.2009 that the CJM, Dhanbad has very meticulously dealt with the materials collected by the Investigating Officer during course of investigation and the complicity of the petitioner Ashok Kumar Singh found therein. The learned senior counsel Mr. Jai Prakash raised a point that the CJM has not expressed the grounds in the impugned order as to how he differed from the charge-sheet and the report submitted by the Investigating Officer wherein the petitioner was not sent up for trial. There is no substance in such argument in view of the detailed order recorded by the CJM. 5. In Uma Shankar v. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 479 the Apex Court held : "The law is well-settled that even if the Investigating Authority is of the view that no case has been made out against an accused, the Magistrate can apply his mind independently to the materials contained in the police report and take cognizance thereupon in exercise of his powers under Section 190(1)(b), Cr PC. This is precisely what has happened in the present case. In the instant case the investigation had been handed over to cm and both cm and the local police had submitted their reports in final form exonerating the petitioner of the allegations made against him in the FIR. However. the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Siwan took cognizance of the offence under Sections 302/379. IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the petitioner. This is not a case where the Magistrate took recourse to any further inquiry but took cognizance on the police report itself. which he was entitled to do under Section 190(1)(b). Cr PC." 6. However. the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Siwan took cognizance of the offence under Sections 302/379. IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the petitioner. This is not a case where the Magistrate took recourse to any further inquiry but took cognizance on the police report itself. which he was entitled to do under Section 190(1)(b). Cr PC." 6. In the facts and circumstances. I find that the learned senior counsel failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned so as to call for interference by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this-Court. This petition is devoid of merit. accordingly it is dismissed. Petition dismissed.