Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 261 (JHR)

Rajan Gupta, son of late Amrit Lal Gupta v. State of Jharkhand

2019-01-28

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners are aggrieved of the order dated 16.09.2014 by which cognizance of the offence under sections 341/323/506 I.P.C in Bariatu (Gonda) P.S Case No.41 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No.697 of 2013 has been taken by the learned Magistrate. 2. The brief facts of the case are recorded thus: (i) On the basis of the written report dated 11.02.2013 a First Information Report being Bariatu (Gonda) P.S Case No.41 of 2013 was registered on 11.02.2013 for the offence under sections 341/323/506 I.P.C. (ii) The petitioners are named in the First Information Report. (iii) The petitioners are residents of Bengali Market, New Delhi is recorded in the First Information Report. (iv) After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance of the offence was taken vide order dated 16.09.2014. (v) In the written report, the informant-O.P No.2 has alleged that the petitioner no.1 who is the maternal uncle of her husband and the petitioner no.2 who is the maternal aunt of her husband came to her house on 11.02.2013 at about 6.45 A.M along with four police officers and constables and they ransacked her house. They have abused the informant, pushed her, threatened her and did not permit her to report for duty at C.I.P. In the present proceeding, O.P No.2 has filed an affidavit asserting several facts which are not reflected in her written report. It is a matter of record that the police officers who allegedly ransacked the house of O.P No.2 have not been sent-up for trial. Sri A. Allam, the learned Senior counsel for O.P No.2, on a Court’s query, informs the Court that O.P No.2 has not filed a protest-petition either after filing of the charge-sheet or after cognizance of the offence was taken on 16.09.2014. 3. Under section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Magistrate of the first class or any Magistrate of the second class, specially empowered under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence; (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence, (b) upon a police report of such facts, or (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. Evidently, cognizance of the offence is taken by the Magistrate and not of the offender. Evidently, cognizance of the offence is taken by the Magistrate and not of the offender. An order taking cognizance or any order through which a proceeding in the criminal court is initiated is a serious matter and such powers cannot be exercised by the Magistrate lightly. A Magistrate is not a post-office and he does not act like a machine (refer, “Mehmood UL Rehman Vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others” reported in AIR 2015 SC 2195 ). 4. A bare perusal of the order taking cognizance dated 16.09.2014 records that charge-sheet along with case-diary has been submitted by the investigating officer and on perusal of the same a prima-facie case under sections 341/323/506 I.P.C is made out. There is no indication of application of mind by the Magistrate in its order dated 16.09.2014. The expression ‘prima-facie’ is not a magic word mere use of which can be a substitute for the application of mind by the Magistrate when process/warrant of arrest against an accused is issued. The order taking cognizance no doubt need not be a detailed order but it must reflect application of mind by the Magistrate, that from the materials produced before it a prima-facie case has been made out and therefore summons to the accused persons. The impugned order dated 16.09.2014 is a cryptic order which does not disclose the application of mind by the trial Magistrate. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts, without observing on merits of the materials collected during the investigation, the impugned order dated 16.09.2014 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Magistrate for a fresh order upon consideration of the materials recorded in the case-diary. 6. Viewed thus and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, Cr. M.P No.880 of 2016 is allowed. 7. I.A. Nos.3559 of 2016 and 7025 of 2016 stand disposed of.