NANAK CHAND JINDANI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, dated 28.08.2012 vide which the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a complaint was registered by the police on 08.05.2008 as FIR No. 115/2008, Police Station Sadar, Shimla. The police investigated the case and filed the challan. The final report was filed by the police before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla as against four persons namely S.H.O. Shiv Chaudhary, S.I. Kanwar Singh, I.O. Rattan Singh and Constable Mahinder Singh under Section 341, 342, 323, 325, 218 read with section 120B IPC. The supplementary challan was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, in which it was alleged that the statement of Rajesh Sharma was recorded on the direction of the Court and the said statement was also filed in the Court as an supplementary challan. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide its impugned order, Annexure P -6, dated 28.8.2012 came to the conclusion on consideration of the medical certificate and other evidence that a case under Section 307 I.P.C. was also made out at least against accused Shiv Chaudhary.

(2.) THEREAFTER , the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate observed in para 50 of its impugned order that Nanak Chand Jindani, the present petitioner had also a role to play and it was observed that a prima facie case was made out against him also apart from other sections under Section 307 I.P.C. and there was ample material on record to hold that there is prima facie case under Section 307 I.P.C. and other Sections as against the present petitioner also. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge for trial observing that since the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner, Nanak Chand also deserved to be summoned as a co -accused and therefore, the committal order was passed.

(3.) DURING the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has referred to the decision in Sajjan Kumar Versus Central Bureau of Investigation : (2010) 9 SCC 368. In para 20, it was observed by their Lordships that a Magistrate enquiring into a case under Section 209 Cr.P.C. is not to act as a mere post office and has to come to a conclusion whether the case before him is fit for commitment of the accused to the Court of Session. Thus, it was submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had rightly passed the order for summoning the petitioner.