PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.11.2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran in UT. 251/2000 whereby the learned Magistrate has directed for putting petitioner on trial and for commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions.

(2.) FACTS, which are necessary for decision of this application are that one Rameshwar Manjhi gave a report to the Bhagwan Bazar police station on 21.10.1997 stating therein that on 21.10.1997 at 10.30 a.m., he was carrying children in a rickshaw including two girls, namely, Suchi Kumari aged about 10 years and Babloo Kumari aged about 8 years and one boy Ravi Kumar aged about 6 years who are daughters and son of Dr. Ram Ekbal Prasad. According to the report, when the rickshaw reached near Chamar Mai Mandir near bus stand at about 8.45 a.m., he saw two motor-cycles, one parked near Chamar Mai Mandir and another on the Main Road. According to him, when he reached near the corner of the Mandir, one person caught the handle of the rickshaw, stopped it and the other person lifted said Ravi Kumar from the rickshaw. According to the report, accused-persons were armed with revolver and said Ravi Kumar was taken on the Rajdoot motorcycle and two persons driving another motorcycle, went behind them.

(3.) ADDITIONAL Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State and Sri D.N. Prasad appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2 state that even after commitment of the case when the final report was submitted, nothing prevented the Magistrate to consider the entire facts and materials so as to prima facie find out the complicity of the petitioners in the crime. In support of their submissions, they have placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Devendra Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr. 1998 (3) PUR 345, and my attention has been drawn to paragraph 4 of the judgment which reads as follows: 4. There is no dispute with regard to the settled proposition of law that it is wholly within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to pass appropriate order even after cognizance has been taken on the basis of the report submitted by the police after investigation. Further, it is in the discretion of the Magistrate to pass appropriate order on the basis of the subsequent report submitted by the police under Section 173(8) of the Code. Here is not a case where the Chief Judicial Magistrate refused to exercise power under Section 173 of the Code on the ground that the cognizance has already been taken rather from perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Magistrate has considered the entire facts of the case and also the evidence came on the record during investigation. Learned Court below took into consideration the fact that the allegation of assault on Indu Kumari and first aid given to her by the Doctor was substantiated by the seizure of the prescriptions by the police. Learned Magistrate also took into consideration the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 101 of the Code to the effect that the deceased received injury on her person by means of Bhala and the said injury was substantiated by autopsy report available on the record. Learned Magistrate took into notice of the supervision note of the Dy. S.P. Sonepur and the S.P. Saran where the involvement of the accused was found. The Court below, therefore, on the basis of the materials on record came to the conclusion that both the cases filed by the informant Nand Kishore Singh and the case filed by the I.O. on his own fardbeyan against the informant and his companion for the alleged murder of Indu Kumari should be put on trial together so that justice would be made available to the party concerned. In my opinion, therefore, the decisions cited by-the learned Counsel do not apply. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find grave error of law in the impugned order passed by the Court below inasmuch as the Court below has exercised power under Section 173 of the Code and found that it is not a fit case where the petitioners should be exonerated at this stage.