Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 454 (JHR)

Ratan Lal Sahu v. State of Jharkhand

2014-04-01

R.R.PRASAD

body2014
Judgment Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Khunti P.S. Case No.153 of 2011 (G.R. No.404 of 2011) including the order dated 14.12.2012 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, I/C, Khunti whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 353, 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code, has been taken against the petitioner. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that three persons namely, Rinku Mishra, Shashikant Mishra, and Rupesh Bhagat as well as seven to eight unknown persons came to the Forest Sub Divisional Office, Khunti and they broke open the lock of the gate and took away one pick up van bearing Registration No. JH-01J-8802, which had been seized in commission of the offence. The case was lodged by one Arbind Kumar Munda, who had seen aforesaid persons taking away pick up van bearing Registration No.JH-01J-8802. 4. On such allegation, the case was registered as Khunti P.S. Case No.153 of 2011 under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The matter was taken up for investigation. During investigation, it got transpired that this petitioner was having a motorcycle registration number of which, was JH.01J-8802. The vehicle which was taken away by the accused persons was also having same registration number as J.H.01J-8802. In spite of that, charge sheet was submitted against the persons named in the FIR as well as this petitioner as the registration number of the vehicle which the petitioner does have was the same as J.H.01J-8802, though the Chassis Number and the Engine Number of the vehicle, which was taken by the accused and the vehicle (motorcycle) of the petitioner was different. 6. 6. On submission of the charge sheet, cognizance of the offence was taken against the petitioner simply on the account of the fact that the petitioner was the owner of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. JH.01J-8802, but the court below did not take into account the fact that the petitioner was the owner of the motorcycle, having different Chassis and Engine Number which got transpired during investigation whereas looted vehicle was a pickup van having different Chassis and Engine Number and was registered in the name of Rinku Mishra, FIR named accused, which fact does suggest that the accused persons had used the registration number of the petitioner's motorcycle for committing an offence. 7. In spite of that, the court below took cognizance of the offence, which is quite bad, as accepting the fact as stated above, nothing is there against the petitioner, showing his hand in the commission of the offence and the fact, which was stated, upon which charge sheet has been submitted, never does suggest about the hand of the petitioner in the commission of the offence as alleged and, thereby, it does appear that there has been absolutely no legal evidence against the petitioner showing commission of the offence. 8. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding of Khunti P.S. Case No.153 of 2011 (G.R. No.404 of 2011) including the order taking cognizance dated 14.12.2012 is, hereby, quashed. 9. In the result, this application stands allowed.