Jharkhand High Court
Sudarshan Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 September, 2018
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M. P. No. 1542 of 2007
---
Sudarshan Singh ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Sunil Kumar Yadav ... ... Opposite Parties
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
---
5/10.09.2018 Heard Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 07.04.2007 passed by the learned C.J.M., Bokaro in Chas P. S. Case No. 1 of 2007 by which cognizance for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 379, 387, 504 & 506 of I.P.C. has been taken It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the final form has been submitted in favour of the petitioner with a recommendation to initiate a proceeding under Section 182/211 against the opposite party no. 2. He submits that although a protest petition was filed, but the same was not treated as a complaint petition, and the learned C.J.M. disagreeing with the final form has taken cognizance and summoned the petitioner to face trial.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 on the other hand, while supporting the impugned order has submitted that the charge has already been framed which fact has not been brought to the notice of this Court when the matter was taken up on 19..04.2010. Learned counsel thus submits that considering the said fact, it would not be conducive to interfere in the impugned order dated 07.04.2007.
The petitioner was made an accused in connection with Chas P. S. Case No. 1 of 2007. Investigation resulted in submission of final form with a recommendation for initiating a proceeding under Section 182/211 of Cr.P.C. against the opposite party no. 2. On being noticed, the opposite party no. 2 had filed a protest petition which although was treated as a complaint petition, but it appears from the impugned order -2- dated 07.04.2007 that neither the materials collected in course of investigation was discussed nor any inquiry was conducted based on the protest petition submitted by the opposite party no. 2. If the learned C.J.M. treated the protest petition as a complaint petition, he could have conducted an inquiry and if there was material which would suggest the complicity of the petitioner could have taken cognizance and thereafter proceeded with the trial. The learned C.J.M. seems to have done neither and has merely mentioned about the perusal of the case diary as well as the protest cum complaint petition which was not at all permissible in law for him to do so while passing the impugned order.
This court is aware about the fact that the charges have been framed in the year 2008 itself, but considering the illegality of the order dated 07.04.2007 passed by the learned C.J.M., Bokaro it would be a travesty of justice that if merely on account of the charge having been framed, interference is not made in the impugned order dated 07.04.2007.
Accordingly, in view of what has been stated above, this application stands allowed and the impugned order dated 07.04.2007 passed by the learned C.J.M., Bokaro in connection with Chas P. S. Case No. 1 of 2007 by which cognizance has been taken for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 379, 387, 504 & 506 of I.P.C. is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned C.J.M., Bokaro to pass a fresh order in accordance with law on the final form submitted by the police in favour of the petitioner.
The exercise indicated above should be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
This application stands disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) R. Shekhar Cp 3