Patna High Court - Orders
Thakur Mallah vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 8 January, 2014
Author: Rakesh Kumar
Bench: Rakesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.44639 of 2010
======================================================
Thakur Mallah son of Ghurfekan Mallah, resident of Village- Bahera, P.S.-
Durgawati, District - Kaimur (Bhabua)
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Daroga Prasad @ Daroga Ram , son of Late Baliram, resident of
Village- Kalahnuoa, P.S.- Durgawati, District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
For the Opposite Party/s :
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
5 08-01-2014Heard Sri Kumar Sunil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Panchanand Pandit, learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Sanjay Kumar @ Manu, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2/informant.
The present petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 29.7.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur ( Bhabua ), in connection with SC / ST Rohtas (Dehari) P.S. Case No. 16 of 2008, G.R. No. 286 of 2008, whereby, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Section 406 / 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset submits that though earlier opposite party no. 2 had filed a Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.44639 of 2010 (5) dt.08-01-2014 2/3 complaint petition, which was referred to Police for registration of F.I.R., and thereafter, an F.I.R. vide SC/ST Rohtas (Dehari) P.S. Case No. 16 of 2008 was registered, however, during investigation accusation made against the petitioner was not found true and as such Police submitted final report. After submission of final report the learned Magistrate without assigning any reason has passed the order of cognizance. He submits that it is settled law that in a case final report is submitted, the court is competent to take cognizance even differing with the Police report, but, in that event, reason is required to be assigned.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Sanjay Kumar @ Manu , learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 have opposed the prayer of petitioner but they were not in a position to dispute the proposition of law.
Fact remains that by the impugned order learned Magistrate though has taken cognizance of offence differing with the Police report, he has not assigned any reason. Accordingly, in absence of any reason assigned at the time of taking cognizance while differing with the Police report, the court is of the opinion that the order impugned is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the order impugned passed in Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.44639 of 2010 (5) dt.08-01-2014 3/3 SC/ST Rohtas (Dehari) P.S. Case No. 16 of 2008, G.R. No. 286 of 2008 is hereby set aside and matter is remitted back to the concerned court to examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. If the court feels that there is material on record to take cognizance differing with the Police report, the learned Magistrate may indicate some reason.
With above observation and direction, the petition stands disposed of.
(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/-