RAMA KANT RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel who was assisted by Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Raj Kishore Prasad , learned counsel who has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

(2.) The petitioner/ husband of the deceased has approached this Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer quash an order dtd. 28/2/2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif (hereinafter referred to as the "Magistrate") in Bihar P.S. Case No. 50 of 2010. By the said order the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sec. 498A, 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(3.) By way of referring to the F.I.R. i.e. Annexure - 1? to the present petition it has been argued that petitioner though was husband of the deceased, he was not arrayed with name as accused in the F.I.R. However, during investigation petitioner?s role was also examined and after thorough investigation initially charge sheet was submitted in this case. Initially first charge sheet was submitted vide Annexure- 2? to the present petition vide Charge Sheet No. 73 of 2010 dtd. 17/5/2010 in which two F.I.R. named accused persons were arrayed as accused and name of those accused was incorporated in column no. 11 of the charge sheet . After submission of first charge sheet further investigation was conducted and finally supplementary charge sheet was submitted vide Charge Sheet No. 299 of 2012 dtd. 18/9/2012. In the supplementary charge sheet the petitioner along with his sister namely Anita Kumari were exonerated. In the supplementary charge sheet in column no. 11 name of none of the accused persons was mentioned. The case was not found true against the petitioner and final report in favour of the petitioner and his sister Anita Kumari was filed. Thereafter , the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Biharsharif without assigning any reason for differing with the police report has passed order of cognizance against petitioner. However, the learned Magistrate by the same order has accepted the final report in respect of the co -accused Anita Kumari . It has been emphatically argued that once after investigation final report was submitted exonerating the petitioner, the learned Magistrate though was competent to pass order of cognizance differing with the police report but in that eventuality he was required to assign reason . By way of referring to the impugned order he submits that nothing has been indicated regarding differing with the police report and on this very ground the order is liable to be set aside.