CHANDRA KISHORE MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 03.01.2018 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bagaha-cum-Special Judge, West Champaran in POCSO case No. 06 of 2017 (CIS NO. 6890 of 2017) arising out of Gobarhiya P.S Case No. 09 of 2016 dated 21.10.2016 by which the application preferred by the petitioner under section 227 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for discharge from the case has been rejected.

(2.) Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 03.01.2018 has been passed mechanically without application of judicial mind by the trial court. He submitted that the act of taking cognizance can not be equated with the act of discharge as they are two different acts to be performed by the trial court at two different stages. He pleaded that the only ground for rejection of the petition filed under section 227 of the Cr.P.C , 1973is that the court had passed an elaborate order on 01.11.2017. The said order dated 01.11.2017 is an order taking cognizance of the offence and that could not have been a ground for rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner. He submitted that before placing the case for hearing on the point of charge even the police papers, as required under section 207 of the Cr.P.C,, 1973 were not supplied to the petitioner.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State being assisted by learned counsel appearing for the informant submitted that the petitioner has been made a named accused in a case registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code (for short 'the I.P.C.') in which the police have submitted charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short 'POCSO Act') and after perusing the first information report, materials collected in course of investigation and statement of the witnesses recorded under section 161(3) of the Cr.P.C,, 1973 the court took cognizance of the offences vide order dated 01.11.2017 and thus, no error can be found with the order impugned passed by the court below whereby the application for discharge preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.