BASUDEO MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 1.5.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 302,120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code in Hilsa P.S. Case No.58 of 1999 on the basis of supplementary chargesheet submitted by the police.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that the petitioner was made one of the accused along with three other accused persons in Hilsa P.S. Case No.58 of 1999 on an allegation of murdering younger brother of the informant. Since in the present case, the question, which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that after submission of chargesheet and exoneration of the petitioner by the Officer Incharge without collecting any material further chargesheet is not permissible, the order of cognizance is bad, it is not necessary to give detail of the allegation levelled against the petitioner. In the case, initially the petitioner along with three other accused persons was named as accused in the F.I.R. Since the petitioner was named accused in the F.I.R. , he was taken in custody during the investigation of the case. Subsequently, the police after collecting materials and completing the investigation submitted chargesheet vide Chargesheet No.45 of 1999 on 11.6.1999 against three accused persons and the petitioner was recommended for his discharge and in the chargesheet it was also requested for issuance of release order in favour of the petitioner. After submission of chargesheet, learned Magistrate took cognizance of offences in respect of three other accused persons, who were forwarded by the police. So far the petitioner is concerned, as per recommendation of the police, learned Magistrate, while discharging, directed for issuance of release order vide its order dated 14.6.1999. After the petitioner was released, a supplementary chargesheet vide Chargesheet No.111 of 1999 on 29.12.1999 against the petitioner was filed. After submission of supplementary chargesheet , the learned Magistrate vide its order dated 1.5.2000 took cognizance of offences and summoned the petitioner to face trial.

(3.) Aggrieved with the order of cognizance dated 1.5.2000 passed by the learned Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition. In view of the Judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, reported in 1994 (2) PLJR 96( Jamuna Pathak Vs. The State of Bihar and another), this case was admitted for hearing vide its order dated 15.2.2002. While admitting, it was directed that during the pendency of this application, operation of the order dated 1.5.2000 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, in Hilsa P.S. Case No.58/99, was directed to remain stayed. It was clarified that the order of stay may not be construed to mean that further proceeding in respect of other accused persons has been stayed. However, at the time of hearing of this petition, Sri Rajendra Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner informs the Court that the trial in respect of three other accused persons is still continuing.