LAWS(JHAR)-2011-2-137

SHAKIL QURAISHI @ M. SHAKIL. Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On February 09, 2011
Shakil Quraishi @ M. Shakil. Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashment of the entire criminal proceeding as also the order impugned dated 23.6.2009 by which the C.J.M., Hazaribagh had taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 147/148/149/307/341/323/324/ 326/427/302 of the Indian Penal Code against him besides under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner-Shakil Quraishi @ M. Shakil was named in the F.I.R, with specific attribution but final form was submitted exonerating the criminal liability of the petitioner, It is evident that the learned C.J.M. on receipt of the charge-sheet/final form under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure and upon perusal of the materials in the case diary found the complicity of the petitioner Shakil Quraishi @ M. Shakil in the statements of some of the witnesses for the alleged offence and hence the cognizance of the offence as also against him.

(2.) The main contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the C.J.M, should not have taken cognizance of such offence as also against the petitioner which was exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge. The accused might be summoned "under Section 319 Cr.P.C. if at all materials appeared in course of trial in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The C.J.M., Hazaribagh has got no jurisdiction to take fresh cognizance of the offence against the petitioner who was not sent up for trial in the charge-sheet. Learned Counsel further submitted that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by a decision of this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 886 of 2008 Md. Munif @ Sardar Manifuddin Quraishi @ Munif Kasai V/s. The State of Jharkhand decided on 25.1.2009. Reliance was placed upon the decision of "Ranjit Singh V/s. State of Punjab", 1998 7 SCC 149 wherein the Apex Court held,

(3.) Heard Mr. Hatim learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-Opposite Party, who did not dispute the provisions of law and the propositions relied upon.