MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A first information report of Simaria P.S. Case No. 87 of 2005 (G.R. No. 711/2005) was lodged under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 17 C.L.A. Act, against unknown. The matter was taken up for investigation. The police, after investigation, submitted charge sheet on 07/11/2009, against four accused persons. The investigation was kept open for further investigation against the other accused persons. Subsequently, on 30/04/2010, supplementary charge sheet was submitted against Narayan Mahto showing him as absconder. So far petitioner is concerned, it was recorded that no material showing culpability of this petitioner was found. Still, the Court has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 17 C.L.A. Act, which cannot be said to be legal in view of the decision rendered in a case of "Dharam Pal versus State of Haryana [2013 (3) East. Cr.C. 307 (SC)], on the basis of which a case of Bigan Mian @ Siraj Mian versus State of Jharkhand (Cr. M.P. No. 1413 of 2008), has been decided by this Court, wherein it has been held as follows:

(2.) HERE , in the instant case, as has been stated above, the Court took cognizance against the persons, who had been charge sheeted. Subsequently, on 30/04/2010, supplementary charge sheet was submitted, wherein it has been recorded that no material has been found against the petitioner, in spite of that, the Court has taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioner, though he was never required to take cognizance of the offence again when he had already taken cognizance of the offence in the case of four persons, rather the Court was supposed to find out from the materials collected as to whether there had been any material showing primafacie complicity of the petitioner and if the Court does find such matgerial, he was simply required to commit the case of the petitioner. Since, this has not been done by the Magistrate, order taking cognizance seems to be quite bad. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance is hereby quashed.

(3.) WITH this observation, this application stands disposed of.