Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 222 (JHR)

Kutubuddin Momin v. State of Jharkhand

2012-02-13

R.R.PRASAD

body2012
Judgment Heard the parties. 2. This application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 23.8.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in Maheshpur P.S. Case No. 86 of 2002 (G.R. No. 405 2002) whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offence under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner and others. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when an audit of account of Maheshpur Block was made, it was suspected that some defalcation has been made by the accused persons upon which Maheshpur P.S. Case No. 86 of 2002 was registered for the offence under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code in the year 2002. When the charge-sheet was not submitted even after expiry of nine years, one of the accused persons came to this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 507 of 2011, wherein he had challenged the entire criminal proceeding of Maheshpur P.S. Case No. 86 of 2002. That application was disposed of after observing as follows:- “Having regard to the facts and circumstances and alleged suspected case of embezzlement against the petitioner-Md. Shakir Jamal, other B.D.Os. and the office staff, who have been transferred from different place and that the investigation of the case is still going on, I do not find it appropriate at this stage to interfere with the course investigation. Yet, it is desirable that I.Os. would conclude the investigation as soon as possible and submit police report.” 4. Thereupon, the police submitted charge-sheet after eleven years, upon which cognizance has been taken, which is under challenge. 5. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that during investigation, one of the Supervising Authorities had held that the re-audit is necessary but the Investigating Officer without getting the account of Block Office re-audited, submitted charge-sheet, upon which cognizance has been taken and hence, the order taking cognizance is quite bad. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it does appear that the charge-sheet was submitted after eleven years upon which cognizance of the offence was taken against the petitioner by holding that prima facie materials are there which constitute offence under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code. 7. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it does appear that the charge-sheet was submitted after eleven years upon which cognizance of the offence was taken against the petitioner by holding that prima facie materials are there which constitute offence under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code. 7. Thus, I do not find any illegality in the order dated 23.8.2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in Maheshpur P.S. Case No. 86 of 2002 (G.R. No. 405 2002). Hence, this application stands dismissed. 8. However, it would be open for the petitioner to raise all the points, which have been taken towards insufficiency of the materials constituting offence under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code, at the time of discharge.