Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 791 (JHR)

Umesh Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2016-05-06

ANANDA SEN

body2016
ORDER : 1. The order dated 16.12.2014 on a petition under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure passed in G.R. No. 663 of 2013 by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Bokaro is under challenge. 2. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying therein to drop the proceeding against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not committed any offence and there is serious lacuna in the prosecution case which is apparent from the face of the record thus, the proceeding is liable to be dropped. 3. FIR was lodged at the instance of Damodar Mahto son of Bhola Mahto stating therein that he along with one Manoj Kumar Mahto was proceeding to their place of duty at the Headquarter of B.S.L. and in the meantime, near LIC intersection at Sector IV, one car bearing registration no.BER-3409 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed with the Motorcycle of the petitioner, as a result of which, the complainant and pillion rider got injured. He further stated that the accused tried to flee but the person present there prevented them from fleeing. He further stated that he sustained severe injuries and the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent act of the petitioner. 4. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code and cognizance was taken by the court. The case is pending for explaining the substance of accusation. At that stage, the accused filed a petition under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying therein to drop the proceeding as on close scrutiny of evidences and materials available in the case diary, no charge of alleged offence is made out against him. The said petition has been dismissed, vide order dated 16.12.2014 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, as a result of which, this revision application has been filed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that from the case diary and from the entire record, there is nothing to implicate this petitioner and no offences are made out against him. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that from the case diary and from the entire record, there is nothing to implicate this petitioner and no offences are made out against him. He further submits that the informant was admitted in Bokaro General Hospital on 22.4.2013 at 8.50 a.m. but in the injury report, it has been mentioned that he was examined by the Doctor at 11.50 a.m. which is vital contradiction. He further submits that in the FIR it has been mentioned that his pillion rider Manoj Kumar Mahto was badly injured but in the entire case diary, there is no injury report of Manoj Kumar Mahto nor there is any whisper in the case diary about any injury of Manoj Kumar Mahto. He further submits that the accident as alleged has taken place in densely populated area but surprisingly, I.O. has not examined any witnesses of the vicinity of the alleged occurrence. He further submits that Motorcycle of the informant was not seized by the police and there is no report of Motor Vehicles Inspector. He further submits that Motor Vehicle inspection report of the vehicle of the petitioner suggests that there are no sign of any damage of the vehicle belonging to the petitioner, which suggest that no accident had taken place. He submits that with the mala-fide intention this case has been lodged. 7. After hearing the petitioner at length and after perusing the impugned order, I find that the court below found that there is sufficient material on record to proceed against the accused. The court below in the impugned order has mentioned that statements of the witnesses in paragraphs 3, 4, and 16 of the case diary supports the prosecution story. Further from the argument I find that the points raised by the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage. Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives power to the Magistrate to stop proceedings for reasons to be recorded by him. In the instant case, the Magistrate found that there are sufficient materials to proceed against the accused. What will be the effect of (i) delay in lodging the FIR, (ii) non-seizure of Motorcycle bearing registration no. Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives power to the Magistrate to stop proceedings for reasons to be recorded by him. In the instant case, the Magistrate found that there are sufficient materials to proceed against the accused. What will be the effect of (i) delay in lodging the FIR, (ii) non-seizure of Motorcycle bearing registration no. JH-09N-6326 (iii) Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report, (iv) non-availability of injury report of Manoj Kumar Mahto, non-examination of eye witness or witnesses, who are present at the place of occurrence are to be decided at the stage of trial after taking evidence. 8. At this stage, the question raised by the petitioner cannot be looked into while deciding the petition under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In my view, the court below has rightly rejected the petition under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, this revision application is dismissed. 9. Interim order passed on 16.6.2015 stands vacated.