The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that Section 36 of Code of Criminal Procedure does not empower any police officer superior to the Investigating Officer of the case to impose their views regarding whether the material available in the record is sufficient to constitute the offences alleged in the case is made out or not against the accused of a case.
Brief facts
The present criminal miscellaneous petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed in order to quash the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dumka had taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 384, 420, 406 of the Indian Penal Code, differing from the final form submitted by the police following their investigation. According to this form, the police did not bring the petitioner up for trial due to a lack of evidence.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that the informant of the present case is the accused in the Jarmundi P.S. Case No. 124 of 2020 and when the Petitioner refused to settle the case, this false case has been foisted. It was furthermore submitted that the informant didn’t even corporate with the investigation, therefore, police did not send up the petitioner for trial for lack of evidence. Also, the learned judicial magistrate failed to apply its judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the present case and without recording any subjective satisfaction in relation to the disagreement with the final form has taken cognizance. At last, it was submitted that the Petitioner is also not aware of the paragraphs upon which the learned judicial magistrate relied.
Contentions of the State
The State submitted that in the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, it has been clearly stated about the ingredients for the offence punishable under Sections 384, 420, 406 of Indian Penal Code having been committed by the petitioner. It was furthermore submitted that the Section 36 of Code of Criminal Procedure clears that police officers superior in rank to an officer-in-charge of a police station may exercise the same power throughout the local area to which they are appointed, as may be exercised by such officer within the limits of his police station but that does not mean that they can direct the Investigating Officer of the case to substitute their satisfaction as to whether the materials collected during the investigation of the case is sufficient to constitute the alleged offences, for the satisfaction which is to be exercised regarding the existence of sufficient material for proceeding against the accused persons by the Investigating Officer.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that concerning Section 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is clear that this provision does not give any police officer in a position of authority above the Investigating Officer of the case the right to impose their views on the latter about whether the evidence in the record is sufficient to prove the charges against the accused in the case or not.
It was noted that the paragraphs mentioned by the learned judicial magistrate in it’s order is sufficient to constitute the offences punishable under Sections 384, 420, 406 of Indian Penal Code by the petitioner.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Judicial magistrate requires no interference.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the present criminal miscellaneous petition.
Case Title: Manoj Kumar Mandal @ Manoj Mandal Vs The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Cr.M.P. No. 3940 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :