DHANANJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Surendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Shri Raghav Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

(2.) THE sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 13.11.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan in G.R. No. 1052 of 2006. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) AGGRIEVED with the order of cognizance, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition. It was filed on 5.12.2007. However, subsequently on 6.2.2008, the petition stood rejected due to non -prosecution, but subsequently, it was restored. On 26.3.2010, after hearing, this Court summoned the case diary and while summoning the case diary, this Court also directed for issuance of notice to opposite party No. 2 and in the meanwhile, it was directed to stay the order of cognizance. It is peculiar case in which despite the fact that injured had already died, who was informant in the case, the petitioner has even chosen to implead a dead person as opposite party No. 2. However, Shri Raghav Prasad, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of relative of the deceased. Shri Surendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, while presenting the present petition, has submitted that the order of cognizance is palpably incorrect or illegal order due to the reason that after submission of final report, the learned Magistrate was not at all authorized to take cognizance. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his argument, has referred to a judgment of Honble Supreme Court reported in 2008 (13) SCC .11 Kishori Singh V/s. State of Bihar, as well as a judgment of this Court. Of course, learned counsel for the petitioner has given the reference of the case, but at the time of hearing, he has not bothered to place any fact of that case. Learned counsel for the petitioner, besides questioning the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate, has further submitted that there were no materials showing involvement of the petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner was, at the relevant time, a Government Teacher and on the date of occurrence, he was already on election duty. During investigation, police thoroughly investigated the same and thereafter, police had submitted final report. Admittedly, it has been prayed to set aside the impugned order.