MD NOORAIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in connection with Nirsa P.S. Case No. 22 of 1996 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 408 of 1996 under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) At the very first instance, it is found from the records that the petitioner is coming for quashing of the proceedings at a very belated stage. The case is pending for trial and the witnesses are being summoned. Now, in this case, the petitioner is challenging the order of cognizance, the order of framing charge etc. Charge was framed on 5/10/1996 and by referring to a recent judgment of a single Bench of this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Jha alias Bittu Jha and others v. State of Bihar, 1997 (l)East Cr.C. 481 (Pat) 1997(1) BLJ 777 it is said that when no reason had' been given in framing charge, then the order of framing charge is bad in the eye of law, hence the whole proceeding is bad. Similarly it is said that as the report regarding stolen coal was received on 29/3/1997 which shows that only an interim charge-sheet was submitted earlier but the cognizance was taken of the offence long back which is again bad, but the fact remains that the petitioner had submitted to the jurisdiction and never challenged the order of cognizance of the order framing of charge. When the Code of Criminal Procedure given him all jurisdiction and liberty to raise so at appropriate time but the same has not been done.

(3.) It is the contention of Mr. P.S. Dayal, learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner that quashing of the entire criminal proceedings can be made at any stage. Such contention may be considered to be true but the Courts of law must consider the position and stage when such questions being raised. At any time, any point of matter cannot be raised as the Code of Criminal Procedure had given scope for questioning the relevant orders at the relevant stages. Only because the report has been received on 29/3/1997 that being called for from the Court, there remains no scope to infer that investigation of the case is still going on. However, in such circumstances, Court is not inclined to entertain such petition at this stage, but it appears from the order-sheet of the lower Court that appropriate steps are not being taken for production of the witnesses during the trial stage. In that view of the matter, Judicial Magistrate; 1st Class, Dhanbad, is hereby directed to take proper steps for production of the witnesses from the prosecution side so that the trial can be concluded as expeditiously as possible preferably within four months next from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This petition is dismissed with the observations made above. Petition Dismissed.