GUNJAN TIWARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner whose alleged complicity in the crime came to the light in course of investigation of Naugachia P.S. Case No. 141 of 1994 (Sessions Trial 1305 of 2006) has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 1.11.2003 passed therein by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Naugachia, whereby he had taken cognizance under Sections 376, 302/34 I.P.C. against the petitioner and two other non -F.I.R. named accused and discharged the two F.I.R. named accused who had not been charge -sheeted. The aforesaid case was initially registered against Sikandar Prasad Singh and Bijay Kumar Singh under Sections 307, 324/34 I.P.C. (to which Section 302 I.P.C. was added subsequently) on the basis of the fardbeyan given by one Janardan Prasad Singh of village Pakra at about 9.45 A.M. on 24.6.1994. It is said that the marriage of the daughter of his younger brother Anuplal Singh was scheduled for the previous day and his daughter Maharani Kumari had gone to attend the same. The bridegroom party had come from village Hario. Simultaneously, there was another marriage in the house of neighbour Lal Bhagat whose bridegroom party had come from Begusarai. When Maharani did not return in the following morning, a search was made for her in course whereof the informant learnt that his daughter was lying in an injured condition near the Kabristan. Her neck had been cut on the right side. She was carried to hospital for treatment. The informant raised suspicion against Sikandar Prasad Singh and Bijay Kumar Singh with whom some altercation had taken place during the marriage.

(2.) IT has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is nothing in the case diary to implicate her and even the informant in his further statement (paragraph 76 of the case diary) had expressed strong suspicion against Prabhu Mahto and Kailash Prasad Singh and the involvement of the wife of one Luro Singh but nothing was said about the petitioner. The learned counsel also pointed out that on 30.6.2006 A. S.I. Rajendra Prasad Singh of Naugachia P.S. had submitted a report to the Chief Judicial Magistrate stating that wife of Luro Singh, Kusma Devi, had died in the year 2004 which fact was corroborated by the Mukhiya. It was further submitted that the police had wrongly submitted a chargesheet against the petitioner who was the wife of Yugeshwar Chaurasiya and was a female health worker at Naugachia. The falsity would be apparent from the fact that Maharani who subsequently died had also not disclosed the name of the petitioner notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner was a tenant in her house. It is well settled by now that the word "cognizance" has no esoteric or mystic significance in criminal law and procedure. It merely means to become aware of and when used with reference to a Court or Judge, to take notice of judicially (see Ajit V/s. State, AIR 1963 SC 765). Moreover, it is also settled that cognizance is taken of the offence and not the offender. What Section 190 Cr.P.C. contemplates is that the Magistrate takes cognizance once he makes himself fully aware of the allegations made in the complaint and decides to examine or test the validity of the said allegations. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of Tularam V/s. Kishore Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2401. Therefore, in the present case when the court has taken cognizance, it does not mean that the Magistrate is sanguine in his mind that the petitioner herein has committed the offence and to the contrary it would mean that the case was fit for testing the validity of. the allegations made.

(3.) THERE is another aspect of the matter. It would be apparent that the petitioner has come to this Court at a very late stage challenging the order taking cognizance after the case had already been committed to the court of sessions. This would be apparent from the fact that in the very first paragraph of the petition number of the Sessions Trial has been divulged. Once the case has been committed to the court of sessions, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere and quash the order taking cognizance. It is not known whether charges have already been framed and the trial is proceeding. Therefore, in these circumstances, it would not be proper to interfere with the progress of the trial. However, it is made clear that in case the charges have not been framed, the learned Sessions Court in seisin of the Sessions Trial shall look into the case diary at the time of framing of charge to ascertain whether it is a case of no evidence or not and act accordingly. In case charges have been framed, the court concerned shall proceed in accordance with law.