JOYJIT BHADURI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of the proceeding in G.R. No. 2142/02 arising out of Dispur P.S. Case No. 487/02, at present pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kamrup, Guwahati.

(2.) On 07.05.2002, the informant, Dipankar Deb, filed a written FIR alleging house trespass, assault and forcible taking away of Rs. 1,000/- and damage of goods in the shop, Dispur PS. Case No. 487/02 was registered under Sections 448/325/379/427/ 34 IPC against the two accused petitioners, namely, Joyjit Bhaduri and Janamco Bhaduri. After conclusion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 448/ 325/ 379/427/34 IPC. Thereafter, on receipt of summons from the Court, the accused appeared and furnished copies of document under Section 127 Cr. P.C. The Court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341/323/34 IPC and when particulars of the offences were explained to the accused persons, vide order dated 01-10-03, the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.

(3.) In the revision petition, the petitioners have alleged that the offence under Section 323 IPC is non-cognizable under the provisions of the Cr. P.C. and, as such, the police had no power and jurisdiction to investigate into the case registered under Section 323 IPC. It is stated that although police had jurisdiction to investigate an offence under Section 448 IPC, but as the learned trial Magistrate has not taken cognizance of the offence under Section 448 IPC, and instead took cognizance of the offence under Section 341 IPC, the entire investigation suffers from illegality. It is also stated that although the offence under Section 341 IPC was explained by the learned Magistrate but the materials on record does not disclose commission of any offence under Section 341 IPC.