Jharkhand High Court
Muratjali vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 March, 2019
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 777 of 2010
1. Muratjali
2. Hadi Ansari
3. Gulam Ansari
4. Rahim Ansari
5. Manir Ansari @ Manir Mian
6. Mustkim Ansari
7. Mustafa Ansari
8. Afjal Ansari
9. Kauri Ansari
10. Chutku Ansari
11. Mustafa Ansari ..... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Jahida Bibi ..... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioners: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah
For the State: Mr. M. B. Lal, A.P.P
-----
06/27.03.2019 The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated
26.03.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda in connection with P.C.R. Case No. 64/2007, corresponding to T.R. No. 219/2010 whereby cognizance for the offences under Sections 307/436/380/448/34 IPC has been taken against the petitioners ignoring the fact that earlier vide order dated 21.06.2008, the said Court had taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 323/435/448/379/34 IPC against the petitioners.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of the State.
Pursuant to filing of the complaint being P.C.R. Case No. 64/2007 by the O.P.No.2, the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda while finding a prima facie case under Sections 323/435/448/379/34 IPC against the accused persons/ petitioners, had directed to issue processes against them. The complainant (O.P.No.2) challenged the order dated 21.06.2008 by preferring Cr. Revision No. 64/2008 in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Godda. The said revision was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Godda vide order dated 18.05.2009 setting aside the order dated 21.06.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda in P.C.R. Case No. 64/2007 primarily on the ground that the learned Magistrate had not assigned any reason as to why he did not find a prima facie case under Sections 436/307/380/449 IPC against the petitioners. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the learned Magistrate to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Subsequent to the order dated 18.05.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Godda, the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda vide the impugned order dated 26.03.2010 took cognizance of the offences under Sections 307/436/380/448/34 IPC against the accused persons/petitioners.
On perusal of the impugned order dated 26.03.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda, it appears that the said Court has appropriately discussed the reasons for taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 307/436/380/448/34 IPC against the accused persons/petitioners. Thus, it cannot be said that the impugned order dated 26.03.2010 has been passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda in a mechanical manner. Moreover, the petitioners have also not put challenge to the order dated 18.05.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Godda in Cr. Revision No. 64/2008 in pursuance of which the impugned order dated 26.03.2010 has been passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda. Thus, I see no infirmity in the impugned order dated 26.03.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda in connection with P.C.R. Case No. 64/2007, corresponding to T.R. No. 219/2010.
The present petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, I.A. No. 2771/2019 also stands disposed of.
Satish/- (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)