SORAMANI DEVI & ORS. Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been brought about by the petitioners, five in number for quashing of the cognizance order dated 3-11-2003, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tenughat, in G.R. Case No. 542 of 2003, arising out of Jaridih P.S. Case No.70 of 2003 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence was taken under sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under section 27 of the Arms Act. Further prayer has been made for quashing of the entire criminal prosecution with respect to the petitioners. The case is presently pending in the Court of Shri Rama Kant Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Tenughat.

(2.) The informant Hariya Manjhi delivered his fardbeyan before the Jaridih police station on 28-7-2003 that his brother Jageshwar Manjhi after having his dinner had proceeded to his shop for sleeping in the previous night intervening 27/28-7-2003. In the morning on 28-7-2003, the informant learnt that the dead body of his brother was thrown near Kumhargara bridge after committing his murder. He went to the place of discovery and found several injuries on the person of his brother. The informant raised suspicion that his brother was killed by the wife of the deceased Soramani Devi with the help of her father Kartik Manjhi, brother Sohan Manjhi and Sanjay Manjhi as well as his brother-in-law Ratan Lal Manjhi for the enmity prevailing between his deceased brother and wife Soramani Devi and the members of her family. It was further alleged that a case was lodged by Soramani Devi against her husband and others with respect to demand of dowry which was pending in Tenughat Court and that she was living at her parental home for the last 6-7 years. The accused persons had threatened Jageshwar Manjhi (since deceased) to commit his murder. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, Sachin Rajwar, Guddu Singh, but the petitioner No. 2 Kartik Manjhi, petitioner No. 4 Sanjay Manjhi and petitioner No. 5 Ratan Lai Manjhi were not sent up for trial. Similarly, petitioner No. I Soramani Devi and petitioner No. 3 Sohan Manjhi were in no way implicated since there was no materials in the case diary. Even investigation was not shown pending against them.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after submission of charge-sheet learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tenughat took the cognizance of the offence against the charge-sheeted accused as also against Kartik Manjhi, Sanjay Manjhi and Ratan Lal Manjhi and against the widow Soramani Devi and Sohan Manjhi, against whom there was no material in the case diary. It was admitted in the confessional statements by Vijay Kumar Jaiswal. Guddu Singh and Sachin Rajwar, all accused before the police that they had committed murder of Jogeshwar Manjhi for the love affairs of Jogeshwar Manjhi (since deceased) with Fulmani. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the accused of Complaint Case No. 270 of 2002 brought about by Soramani Devi which is pending in Tenughat Court for the offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code are the witnesses in the murder case and they in their statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have implicated the petitioners in retaliation and the police after investigation very rightly exonerated the petitioners from their criminal liability. But ultimately, without materials either on the record or in the case diary cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide impugned order. In this manner learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acted in mechanical manner and did not apply his judicial mind in taking cognizance.