PRABHUNATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application was initially filed for quashing the charge sheet no.83 of 1996 dated 21.6.1996 submitted in connection with Mashrakh P.S. case no.110 of 1991, corresponding to supplementary U.T.No.62 of 1998, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh whereby the petitioner was sent up for trial for offences under section 364, 302, 201 and 120B of the Indian penal Code. Subsequently, by way of amendment petition, entire criminal proceeding of Mashrakh P.S. case no.110 of 1991 has been sought to be quashed.

(2.) THE facts giving rise this application are that on 23.6.1991 the informant Awadh Kumar Singh proceeded to village Dhanauti along with Manokamana Singh (the deceased) to bring one Jai Prakash, the servant of Ashok Singh. When they met with Jai Prakash, they asked him to go on his bi -cycle whereas the informant Awadh Kumar Singh along with Manokamana Singh (the deceased) proceeded on a motor cycle. When they reached near Dhanauti bridge, they came across with the accused Dina Singh, Nageshwar Singh, Pankaj Singh, Ajay Singh @ Engineer and Om Prakash Singh who had come over there on their motor cycles and some of them were having rifles with them. The accused persons having over powered them made Manokamana Singh to sit forcibly in the motor cycle of Dina Singh and then they proceeded towards Mashrakh. In the way some members of a Barat party saw accused persons taking Manokamana Singh. Thereafter Awadh Kumar Singh lodged a case which was instituted as Mashrakh P.S. case no.110 of 1991 under sections 363 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently when Manokamana Singh was found dead, section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added in the first information report. Thereafter the case was taken up for investigation. The Investigating Officer submitted first charge sheet no.71 of 1991 on 20.9.1991 against Om Prakash Singh only and the investigation was kept open for rest of the accused persons. After some time second charge sheet, bearing no.8 of 1992 was submitted on 7.9.1992 against the accused Dina Nath Singh and Nageshwar Singh. Subsequently, investigation of the case was taken over by the CID, who submitted charge sheet, bearing no.83 of 1996 on 21.5.1996 against the petitioner and one Ajay Singh under sections 302, 201 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter under the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the case was transferred from Bihar to Jharkhand at Hazaribagh, which was registered as T.R.No.509 of 2003 and when the case was committed to the court of sessions, it was registered as Sessions Trial No.22 of 2004 but as the petitioner was shown absconder, his case was separated and was numbered as T.R.No.381 of 2004 and warrant of arrest was issued.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the case was registered in the year 1991 against the named accused persons against whom charge sheets were submitted in two phases but the name of the petitioner never figured in those charge sheets. However, when the investigation was taken over by the CID, charge sheet was submitted under the influence of the ruling party against the petitioner, who at the relevant point of time was a member of legislative assembly, though there was absolutely no material showing legal evidence of the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence.