Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 42 (JHR)

Biru Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand

2014-01-08

R.R.PRASAD

body2014
ORDER Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the informant. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 23.7.2006 passed in Chandankiyari (Barmasia) P.S. case no.79 of 2003 (G.R.No.693 of 2003) whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 432, 436, 452, 307, 506 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against all the accused persons on the basis of materials available on the record differing with the finding given by the Investigation Officer. 3. Being aggrieved with that order, this application has been filed. 4. Mr. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that admittedly no culpability was found by the Investigating Officer against any of the accused persons and thereby none of the petitioner was sent up for trial, still the court took cognizance of the offence simply by stating that prima facie case is made out without assigning any reason and thereby the court did commit illegality in view of the decision rendered in a case of Nupur Talwar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [ (2012) 2 SCC 188 ] and also in view of the decision rendered in a case of M/s. GHEL Employees Stock Option Trust vs. M/s. India Infoline Limited [(2013) 2 East. Crl. Cases 326 (SC)] whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe that the court, in such situation, requires to pass order by assigning reason but since no reason has been assigned for holding that prima facie materials are there, order impugned is fit to be set aside. 5. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the informant submits that the court having been found prima facie case against the petitioner has taken cognizance of the offence and thereby the order taking cognizance can never be said to be quite bad. 6. Admittedly, the charge sheet had not been submitted against the petitioner, in spite of that, the court took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner without assigning any reason as to on what basis he has come to conclusion that the prima facie materials are there against the petitioner. 7. 6. Admittedly, the charge sheet had not been submitted against the petitioner, in spite of that, the court took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner without assigning any reason as to on what basis he has come to conclusion that the prima facie materials are there against the petitioner. 7. In that event, the impugned order dated 23.7.2006, taking cognizance against the petitioner, is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the court concerned for passing a fresh order in accordance with law. 8. In the result, this application stands disposed of.