INDAL YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Ajay Kumar Thakur, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Umesh Lal Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 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 12.11.2007 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani in G.R. Case No. 442 of 2006. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 307, 302, 341, 323, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(X) of S.C./S.T. Act.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that the petitioner alongwith other persons were named an accused in Madhubani Town P.S. Case No, 98 of 2006 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 379, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(X) of S.C./S.T. Act. During investigation, due to death of the injured, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added. The petitioner alongwith seven other accused persons were named in the F.I.R. After conducting investigation, police, on 10,5.2006, submitted charge-sheet against only two accused persons. However, the petitioner and other remaining accused persons were exonerated by the police. It appears from the order dated 16,5.2006 that after submission of the charge-sheet, learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence in respect of two accused persons. However, the petitioner and other accused persons were exonerated. Subsequently, a supplementary charge-sheet in the case was submitted against six accused persons including the petitioner and thereafter, by order dated 12.11.2007, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence.

(3.) Shri Ajay Kumar Thakur, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while questioning the order of cognizance, submits that once the petitioner was exonerated by the police, during investigation, at subsequent stage without obtaining permission from the learned Magistrate, the Investigating Agency was not authorized either to start further investigation or to submit charge-sheet. It was submitted that without any fresh material, the petitioner was not required to be made accused by the Investigating Agency during further investigation. It has been submitted that it is true that police has got power to further investigate, but only on the basis of fresh material, the police was required to either further investigate or submit charge-sheet.