LAWS(JHAR)-2011-2-5

KAMARUDDIN ANSARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On February 24, 2011
KAMARUDDIN ANSARI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashment of the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Jamua P.S. Case No. 159 of 2009 registered on 01.09.2009, corresponding to G.R. No. 1842 of 2009 being the second F.I.R. for the same cause of action though earlier First Information Report was lodged at the same Police Station vide Jamua P.S. Case No. 111 of 2009 on 23.06.2009, corresponding to G.R. No. 1313 of 2009 pending in the Court of the C.J.M., Giridih for the alleged offence under Sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Jamua P.S. Case No. 111 of 2009 was lodged on 23.06.2009 for the alleged offence under Sections 279/337/338/304(a) of I.P.C. wherein the motorcycle rider Ram Chandra Mandal succumbed to his injuries in the accident caused by a "Maruti Van" bearing No. B.I.R. 6363 which was driven rashly and negligently and the case was instituted against unknown driver of the said Van, investigation to which was given to the A.S.I. Javed Siddiqui of Jamua Police Station.

(3.) The fact of the instant case giving rise to Jamua P.S. Case No. 159 of 2009 was in continuation of the earlier police case vide Jamua P.S. Case No. 111 of 2009 that when the informant of the instant case, i.e. the Investigating Officer of the earlier case detected that the driver of "Maruti Van" No. B.I.R. 6363 escaped leaving the vehicle there when the village "Chaukidar" tried to stop him, the vehicle was seized vide entry No. 185 in the Station Diary on 10.06.2009. The driver of the said vehicle Yunus Mian surrendered in the Court on 30.06.2009 and obtained his bail. The informant further narrated that it could be detected that the said Maruti Van belonged to one Suleman Mian and his son Kamaruddin, who used to ply on freight but they could fail to produce any relevant document in support that they were the registered owner of the vehicle except their statements that they were plying the vehicle for the last one year and that no satisfactory answer could be given as to how they became the owners of the vehicle giving rise to reasonable suspicion to believe that the vehicle was stolen by Suleman Mian and his son Kamaruddin Mian.