HARE RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 12-12-2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in Teghra P. S. Case No.103 of 2001 whereby he differed with the conclusion of the Investigating Officer and took cognizance of the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.

(2.) Short facts giving rise to the present application are that on the basis of the report given by Opposite Party No. 2 Sumit Kumar Singh Teghra P. S. Case No. 103 of 2002 was registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'. The first information report was lodged against unknown. The police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against one accused, namely, Sita Ram Bind alias Sita Ram Mahto. The informant filed protest petition alleging the complicity of the petitioners in the crime.

(3.) It is relevant here to state that during the course of investiation statement of five persons namely Ram Bilas Singh, Ram Udai Singh, Hari Nandan Sharma, Sagar Singh and Yogendra Singh were recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, statements of these persons were not recorded at the instance of the Investigating Officer. The informant filed a petition on 13-11-2002 praying to take cognizane of the offence against the petitioners also' inter alia, on the ground that the Investigating Officer did not include the statements of the persons recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short referred to as 'the Code'. According to the informant, front the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the 'Code it is clear that the petitioners have committed the offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC. The learned Magistrate on perusal of the statements of the witnesses examined under Section 164 of the Code as also the material in the police case diary differed with the conclusion of the Investigating Officer and being prima facie, satisfied that the statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code and the material collected during the course of investigation show the petitioners complicity in the crime took cognizance of the offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC.