SANDEEP Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) BY means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioners have sought quashing of the cognizance order dated 15 -02 -2005, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar, in criminal case No. 65 of 2005; State v. Manga and Ors. relating to offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 504, 506 of I.P.C., police station Khanpur, District Haridwar.

(3.) AFTER investigation, it appears that a charge sheet was filed arising out of crime No. 49 of 2004, against 45 accused (including the four Petitioners) in respect of offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 353, 336, 307 of I.P.C. and one under Section 07 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Record further shows that learned Magistrate took cognizance on this charge sheet on 15 -02 -2005 and the same was registered as criminal case No. 63 of 2005; State v. Jogender and Ors. On the cross first information report, a separate charge sheet was filed against 26 accused. The said case was registered as criminal case No. 64 of 2005. To this extent, there is no technical error committed by the trial court as it has to see which of the parties were the aggressors, after recording the evidence. Strangely, yet another charge sheet was filed purporting to have been arisen out of investigation in crime No. 49 -B of 2004, against 45 accused (including the present four Petitioners) in respect of offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 504, 506 of I.P.C. The Magistrate has taken cognizance on this charge sheet also on 15 -02 -2005 and registered the case as criminal case No. 65 of 2005. As such, the learned Magistrate appears to have taken cognizance against the Petitioners twice, in respect of the same offences. The cognizance had been taken in criminal case No. 63 of 2005 against the four Petitioners, namely Sandeep S/o Kavarpal; Pradeep S/o Kavarpal; Jogender S/o Rafal Singh and Preetam S/o Hariram. It was not open for the Magistrate to take cognizance with regard to these Petitioners in respect of same offences in criminal case No. 65 of 2005. Here, the Magistrate has committed error of law in taking cognizance twice as against Petitioners in the subsequent charge sheet.