Jharkhand High Court
Raunak Jaiswal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 March, 2022
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 127 of 2015
1. Raunak Jaiswal
2. Krishna Bhagat
3. Nageshwar Pandit
4. Nakul Pandit
5. Md. Hakim @ Hakik @ Phoolwa ..... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Koushalya Devi ..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Arvind Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate.
------
12/ 02.03.2022 Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P. for the State and Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.
2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.
3. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 04.08.2014, by which, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih has taken cognizance under Sections 323, 504 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, in connection with T.R. No. 117 of 2014, arising out of Complaint Case No. 1265 of 2012, corresponding to Nimiaghat P.S. Case No. 33 of 2011 [G.R. No. 985 of 2011], pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih.
4. Initially the complainant filed a complaint petition, being Complaint Case No. 436 of 2011 with respect to the raiyati land of plot No. 641, area 25 decimals, which has been situated at Station Road, Isri Bazar and there is house built up on that land, where the complainant is residing. It has been alleged that the accused persons illegally assembled there along with arms and destroyed the paddies and some of the trees. The unparliamentary words were also used to the complainant. The complaint was transferred under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation by the police, which was registered as Nimiaghat P.S. Case No. 33 of 2011 [G.R. No. 985 of 2011] and after investigation the police has submitted the chargesheet, wherein the accused persons have not been sent up for trial. Thereafter, the complainant filed a protest petition and on the said protest, the learned Court below has taken the cognizance.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits the cognizance order is not in accordance with law. He submits that no evidence of a single witness has been disclosed in the said cognizance order and in spite of that cognizance has been taken. According to him there are no reasons disclosed in the cognizance order as to why the learned Court below has differed with the chargesheet submitted by the police.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that after looking into the entire documents and materials on record, the learned Court below has taken the cognizance and there is no illegality in the same.
7. The Court has gone through the materials available on record, from which, it appears that in the impugned order, by which, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners, the witnesses examined by the complainant what stated to establish and to what materials are available against the petitioners are not discussed in the cognizance order. However, pursuant to the protest petition, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners by the learned Court below, without assigning any reason of differing with the chargesheet submitted by the police. It is the mandate of law that the learned Court below is required to give a reason why the cognizance is being taken against the accused persons, in spite of the chargesheet submitted in favour of the accused, i.e. lacking in the case in hand.
8. Accordingly, the order dated 04.08.2014, by which, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih has taken cognizance under Sections 323, 504 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, in connection with T.R. No. 117 of 2014, arising out of Complaint Case No. 1265 of 2012, corresponding to Nimiaghat P.S. Case No. 33 of 2011 [G.R. No. 985 of 2011], pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih, is hereby, quashed.
9. The matter is remitted back to the Court concerned to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
10. This petition is accordingly, allowed and disposed of.
11. Interim order is vacated.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-