ASHOK KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of the order impugned dated 7.11.2009 by which the CJM. Dhanbad took the cognizance of the offence under Sections 147/149/341/323/324/ 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and other accused in Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. case No. 669 of 2008. corresponding to GR No. 2904 of 2008 and transferred the record to the me of Shri Pawan Kumar. Judicial Magistrate. Dhanbad to proceed against the accused.

(2.) THE informant Krishna Nandan Sao presented a written report before Dhansar Police Station. Dhanbad on 29.9.2008 alleging inter alia that on 29.9.2008 at about 9 a.m. while he was standing on his land with his son situated at Gandhi Road in the meantime a number of accused persons in the leadership of the petitioner Ashok Kumar Singh came there and started removing the boulders which was put on his land there. On the protest there being raised by the informant it was alleged that the petitioner and one Om Prakash Mandal lifted him and pushed him down on the road with the intention to commit his murder. Similar act was also committed by the other accused Ajit Kumar and Vikash Kumar who attempted to commit murder of the son of the informant, namely. Ravi Shankar. The other sons of the informant namely. Amit Kumar and Manish Kumar and his wife who arrived there were also assaulted by the other accused by means of iron rod stick and spade as a result of which they sustained injuries. One of the miscreants inflicted injury on the head a Manish son of the informant by means of the butt of his pistol. A case was registered on the written complaint giving rise to Dhansar P.S. Case No. 669 of 2008.

(3.) I find from the perusal of the impugned order dated 7.11.2009 that the CJM, Dhanbad has very meticulously dealt with the materials collected by the Investigating Officer during course of investigation and the complicity of the petitioner Ashok Kumar Singh found therein. The learned senior counsel Mr. Jai Prakash raised a point that the CJM has not expressed the grounds in the impugned order as to how he differed from the charge -sheet and the report submitted by the Investigating Officer wherein the petitioner was not sent up for trial. There is no substance in such argument in view of the detailed order recorded by the CJM.