SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties. 1. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 15.6.2007 passed by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Ormanjhi P.S. Case No. 2 of 2006 (G.R. No. 69 of 2006) whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Sections 217 and 221 of Indian Penal Code has been taken against these petitioners.

(2.) MR . Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that besides these petitioners against whom cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Sections 217 and 221 of Indian Penal Code has been taken, the court has also taken cognizance of the offences by the same order under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code against the accused -Hayat Ali Ansari, Firoj Ansari, Ramesh Sahu and Jakir Ansari in a case lodged by Punam Toppo alleging therein that while she was sitting under a tree, four accused persons namely, Hayat Ali Ansari, Firoj Ansari, Ramesh Sahu and Jakir Ansari put her on fire in order to kill her who subsequently succumbed to injury. When Punam Toppo had come before the Officer In -charge of Ormanjhi Police Station to lodge the case, one Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre and B.D.O., Ormanjhi were sitting over there, and in their presence statement was given by Punam Toppo. Just before that Mairun Nisha had lodged a case against Punam Toppo wherein it has been alleged that Punam Toppo had assaulted her and that while Mairun Nisha along with her husband -Jakir Ansari was in the police station, Punam Toppo came and lodged a case putting allegation against Jakir Ansari and other three persons that they had put her on fire though Jakir Ansari was sitting right in front of the Officer In -charge, Ormanjhi. The case lodged by Punam Toppo was registered under Sections 307 and 323/34 of Indian Penal Code against all those four accused persons. While the matter was under investigation, a complaint was made before the then Chief Judicial Magistrate by the husband of Punam Toppo to the effect that the Investigating Officer has not been arresting the accused persons. Neither he is recording the statement of B.D.O. or the Medical Officer, Ormanjhi nor the statement of the victim is being recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

(3.) AT the same time, the court also took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 217 and 221 of Indian Penal Code against these petitioners, who are Dy. S.P., Officer In -charge and Investigating Officer not on the basis of the statement made in the complaint petition against the petitioners but on the basis of the personal knowledge, as the court time to time had given direction to the Investigating Officer to record the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and also the statements of the witnesses which according to counsel was not complied with but the record would go to show that all the orders passed by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate had been complied with which would be evident from the statement made in the counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that the statement of deceased -Punam Toppo had been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and even the statement of the Medical Officer and the B.D.O., Ormanjhi had been recorded by the Investigating Officer and thereby no order was there which has not been complied with.