KANCHAN KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 8.9.2011 passed in Trial No. 4089 of 2011, arising out of Parasi P.S. Case No. 1 of 2011 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad, whereby in disagreement with the police report cognizance has been taken for offences under Sections 420, 462, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code and summonses have been ordered to be issued to the accused petitioners for facing trial and further the case has been transferred to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jehanabad for trial and disposal.

(2.) It is not in dispute that FIR vide Annexure-1 was lodged for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the aforesaid FIR both the petitioners are named as accused persons. It is also not in dispute that the case was thoroughly investigated by the police, but during the course of investigation, independent witnesses did not support the prosecution case, as a result thereof final report dated 28.7.2011 (Annexure-2) was submitted and the petitioners were not charge-sheeted. However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in disagreement with the police report, has taken cognizance for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/34 IPC by the impugned order dated 8.9.2011.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has raised a very short question. It is submitted that it is true that the learned Magistrate was empowered to disagree with the police report for the purpose of taking cognizance, but while doing so he was required to record reasons for such disagreement, and only thereafter he could have taken cognizance and ordered for issuance of summons against the accused persons, but that has not been done in the present case.