VIKASH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner, who is the informant of Jehanabad P.S. Case No.195 of 2010, has laid grievance against the order dated 16.03.2012, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance against one Satya Narain Prasad for the offences under Section 302 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code and has dropped the proceedings as against the opposite party nos.2 to 6, as they were not charge-sheeted by the police. The aforesaid order is sought to be challenged on the ground that if the learned Magistrate decided to accept the report of the police with respect to dropping of the proceedings as against the opposite party nos. 2 to 6, it was incumbent upon him, mandatorily, to notice the informant i.e. the petitioner to be heard on the point of cognizance.

(3.) After investigation of Jehanabad P.S. Case No.195 of 2010, charge-sheet was submitted against some of the accused persons, who were sent-up for trial and those persons are facing trial in Sessions Trial No.92 of 2011. After passage of some time, a supplementary charge-sheet was submitted vide Charge-sheet No.50 of 2012, wherein only one of the accused, namely, Satya Narain Prasad was sent-up for trial, whereas opposite party nos. 2 to 6 were not sent-up for trial. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 16.03.2012 (under challenge), accepted the report of the police in totality i.e. took cognizance against Satya Narain Prasad and dropped the proceedings against opposite party nos. 2 to 6. Another application came to be filed at the instance of the petitioner asking him to be heard by the Court on point of cognizance. The aforesaid prayer of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 09.04.2012 on the ground that after the Court takes cognizance, the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate becomes functus officio.