JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the order dated 16.05.2018 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat in G.R. Case No. 282/17(S) as well as the order dated 25.07.2017, whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 307, 354B, 427 & 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE in connection with G.R. Case No. 282 of 2017(S). 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was the member of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of the assembly, the members of the unlawful assembly assaulted Samsuddin Ansari, on the allegation that he is a child lifter, resulting in his death. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Chandrapura P.S. Case No. 46 of 2017 and took up investigation of the case. After submission of the Charge Sheet No. 74 of 2017, the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 147 , 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 307, 354B, 427 & 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . Consequent upon that Supplementary Charge Sheet bearing No. 40 of 2018 was submitted and upon receipt of the Supplementary Charge Sheet, the learned A.C.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat has observed that the cognizance already taken in the case shall be valid for the petitioner as well. The supplementary charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner showing him to be an absconder. The petitioner faced the trial and so far three witnesses have been examined during the trial. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Iqbal alias Bala and Others Vs. The petitioner faced the trial and so far three witnesses have been examined during the trial. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Iqbal alias Bala and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , (2023) 8 SCC 734 that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has inter-alia held that that the court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., need not restrict itself only to the stage of the case but is empowered to taken into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. It is next submitted that two of the witnesses in the case diary have not taken the name of the petitioner being the person who was present at the place of occurrence as mentioned in paragraph no. 18 & 29 of the case diary. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Sharif Ahmed and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another , 2024 INSC 363 and submits that para -31 thereof mandates that the investigating officer must make clear and complete entries of all columns in the charge sheet and the role played by each of the accused in the crime should be separately and clearly mentioned in the charge sheet. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the trial the P.W.3 has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution and though the P.W.1 has supported the case of the prosecution but he has not taken the name of the petitioner but the P.W.2 during his examination as a witness in Sessions Trial No. 384 of 2018 has categorically stated that the petitioner along with the co-accused persons were taking the deceased – Samsuddin Ansari towards “Turi tola” by assaulting him. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 6. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor in response to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner urging upon this Court to look to the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by the police and available in the case diary; relies upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab and Others , (2020) 3 SCC 317 , Para-10 of which reads as under:- “10. We do not agree with the submissions made on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3. The conclusion of the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings is on the basis of its assessment of the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC. Statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC being wholly inadmissible in evidence cannot be taken into consideration by the Court, while adjudicating a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC [Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P., (2007) 7 SCC 378 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 375].” (Emphasis supplied) And submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in that judgement has in no uncertain manner held that the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. being wholly inadmissible in evidence cannot be taken into consideration by the court while adjudicating a petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, it is submitted that the contention of the petitioner to look to the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. is fallacious. 7. So far as the contention of the petitioner regarding the charge sheet being invalid is concerned on the ground that it lacks specific role played by the petitioner in great detail is concerned, the learned Special Public Prosecutor relies upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of H.N. Rishbud Vs. State (Delhi Administration) , (1954) 2 SCC 934 Para-13 of which reads as under:- “13. The question then requires to be considered whether and to what extent the trial which follows such investigation is vitiated. Now, trial follows cognizance and cognizance is preceded by investigation. This is undoubtedly the basic scheme of the Code in respect of cognizable cases. But it does not necessarily follow that an invalid investigation nullifies the cognizance or trial based thereon. Now, trial follows cognizance and cognizance is preceded by investigation. This is undoubtedly the basic scheme of the Code in respect of cognizable cases. But it does not necessarily follow that an invalid investigation nullifies the cognizance or trial based thereon. Here we are not concerned with the effect of the breach of a mandatory provision regulating the competence or procedure of the court as regards cognizance or trial. It is only with reference to such a breach that the question as to whether it constitutes an illegality vitiating the proceedings or a mere irregularity arises. A defect or illegality in investigation, however serious, has no direct bearing on the competence or the procedure relating to cognizance or trial. No doubt a police report which results from an investigation is provided in Section 190 CrPC as the material on which cognizance is taken. But it cannot be maintained that a valid and legal police report is the foundation of the jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance. Section 190 CrPC is one out of a group of sections under the heading “Conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings.” The language of this section is in marked contrast with that of the other sections of the group under the same heading i.e. Sections 193 and 195 to 199. These latter sections regulate the competence of the court and bar its jurisdiction in certain cases excepting in compliance therewith. But Section 190 does not. While no doubt, in one sense, clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 190(1) are conditions requisite for taking of cognizance, it is not possible to say that cognizance on an invalid police report is prohibited and is therefore a nullity. Such an invalid report may still fall either under clause (a) or (b) of Section 190(1), (whether it is the one or the other we need not pause to consider) and in any case cognizance so taken is only in the nature of error in a proceeding antecedent to the trial. To such a situation Section 537 CrPC which is in the following terms is attracted: “537. To such a situation Section 537 CrPC which is in the following terms is attracted: “537. Finding or sentence when reversible by reason of error or omission in charge or other proceedings.—Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding, sentence or order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered on appeal or revision on account: (a) of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, charge, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any enquiry or other proceedings under this Code. *** unless such error, omission, irregularity or misdirection has in fact occasioned a failure of justice.” If, therefore, cognizance is in fact taken, on a police report vitiated by the breach of a mandatory provision relating to investigation, there can be no doubt that the result of the trial which follows it cannot be set aside unless the illegality in the investigation can be shown to have brought about a miscarriage of justice. That an illegality committed in the course of investigation does not affect the competence and the jurisdiction of the court for trial is well- settled as appears from the cases in Parbhu v. King Emperor, 1944 SCC OnLine PC 1 : (1943- 44) 71 IA 75 : AIR 1944 PC 73 and Lumbhardar Zutshi v. R., 1949 SCC OnLine PC 64 : (1949-50) 77 IA 62 : AIR 1950 PC 26 . These no doubt relate to the illegality of arrest in the course of investigation while we are concerned in the present cases with the illegality with reference to the machinery for the collection of the evidence. This distinction may have a bearing on the question of prejudice or miscarriage of justice, but both the cases clearly show that invalidity of the investigation has no relation to the competence of the court. We are, therefore, clearly, also, of the opinion that where the cognizance of the case has in fact been taken and the case has proceeded to termination, the invalidity of the precedent investigation does not vitiate the result, unless miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby.” (Emphasis supplied) And submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has categorically held that where cognizance of the case has been taken, the invalidity of the precedent investigation does not vitiate the result unless miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby. It is next submitted that in this case, there is no material in the record proves show that the petitioner was the member of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the assembly, he has committed the murder of the deceased – Samsuddin Ansari. So this much is sufficient to fulfill the requirement of submitting a final report against the petitioner though there was scope for furnishing better particulars also but the same is certainly not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding when the trial is admittedly at an advanced stage when three of the witnesses of the prosecution have already been examined and out of them, the P.W.2 has supported the case of the prosecution and has vividly described the role of the petitioner in commission of the offence by being member of an unlawful assembly, was taking the deceased by assaulting him, which ultimately resulted in his death. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record as well as in view of the principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab and Others (supra), this Court is of the considered view that certainly this Court while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot look into the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as urged upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. So far as the contention of the petitioner that there is inadequate description of the role played by the petitioner in the commission of the offence is concerned, the perusal of the charge sheet reveals that there is allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner was the member of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the assembly he was assaulting the deceased. 10. In view of the principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of H.N. Rishbud Vs. 10. In view of the principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of H.N. Rishbud Vs. State (Delhi Administration) (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner could not put forth any material that he has been prejudiced by the inadequate description of his role played in the occurrence because from the descriptions made in the charge sheet, the same is sufficient. More over when the cognizance has already been taken, charge has already been framed, trial has begun and three witnesses have already been examined, one of whom being the P.W.2 has categorically stated about the involvement of the petitioner in the offence and the P.W.2 is an eye-witness to the occurrence, it would be a travesty of justice to quash the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner at this belated stage. 11. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case to accede to the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 12. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.