Jharkhand High Court
Niyaz Ansari @ Riyaz vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2743 of 2021
1. Niyaz Ansari @ Riyaz
2. Jamir Hussain ..... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl.P.P.
------
02/ 15.02.2022 Heard Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned Spl.P.P. for the State.
2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in
view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation
arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained
about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter
has been heard.
3. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated
27.11.2019, passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat, in Gomia
P.S. Case No. 116 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 986 of 2014,
whereby cognizance for the offences under Sections 379, 295, 295(A),
429/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 11 of Animal Cruelty Act has
been taken against the petitioners, pending in the Court of learned
S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat.
4. The prosecution case is based on the written report of
informant Pradeep Kumar Shahi, A.S.I. Tenughat O.P. He got information
that Lotha @ Imtiyaz Ansari named accused in Gomia P.S. Case No. 113
of 2014 was seen going towards village Naina Tand. On this he along with
other police force reached at Sadam at 12.30. When he was chased by
them he entered into a house situated at Dalal Tola, Sadam and police also
entered into the house the informant and saw that one person was cutting
beef and other person was collecting the same and two people were also
stand over there. The person who was chased by informant succeeded in
fleeing away but the persons were present into the house were asked their
name and address by the informant then they disclosed their name and
address as mentioned in the FIR. They further disclosed that Niyaj Ansari
and Jamir Hussain do sale and purchase of animals and after cutting the
animals, the beef is sold. Further on query, Abdul Rauf and Guljar Ansari
disclosed that they come over there to purchase the beef sometime. On
demand of papers they could not produce the valid papers. Thereafter in
presence of two independence witnesses, some parts of body of oxen was
seized and seizure list was prepared on which witnesses signed.
On the basis of aforesaid written report, Gomia P.S. Case No.
116 of 2014, under Sections 379, 295, 295(A), 429/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 11 of Animal Cruelty Act has been
registered.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that no
case under Sections 295 and 295(A) of the Indian Penal Code has been
made against the petitioners.
6. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that there is
no illegality in the impugned order.
7. The Court has perused the cognizance order, from which, it
transpires that the learned Court has looked into the chargesheet and case
diary and thereafter came to the conclusion that the offences under those
Sections have been made out. This case was investigated by the police and
chargesheet was submitted and thereafter the learned Court has taken the
cognizance against the petitioners.
8. Reference may be made to the case of "Kaptan Singh Vs.
State of U.P." reported in (2021) 9 SCC 35, wherein Para-9.1, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under:-
"9.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the
present case the High Court in exercise of powers
under Section 482 CrPC has quashed the criminal
proceedings for the offences under Sections 147, 148,
149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. It is required to be noted
that when the High Court in exercise of powers under
Section 482 CrPC quashed the criminal proceedings,
by the time the investigating officer after recording the
statement of the witnesses, statement of the
complainant and collecting the evidence from the
incident place and after taking statement of the
independent witnesses and even statement of the
accused persons, has filed the charge-sheet before the
learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147,
148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and even the learned
Magistrate also took the cognizance. From the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court, it does not appear that the High Court took into
consideration the material collected during the
investigation/inquiry and even the statements recorded.
If the petition under Section 482 CrPC was at the stage
of FIR in that case the allegations in the FIR/complaint
only are required to be considered and whether a
cognizable offence is disclosed or not is required to be
considered. However, thereafter when the statements
are recorded, evidence is collected and the charge-
sheet is filed after conclusion of the
investigation/inquiry the matter stands on different
footing and the Court is required to consider the
material/evidence collected during the investigation.
Even at this stage also, as observed and held by this
Court in a catena of decisions, the High Court is not
required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or
enter into the merits of the case as if the High Court is
exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting
the trial. As held by this Court in Dineshbhai
Chandubhai Patel in order to examine as to whether
factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence
or not, the High Court cannot act like the investigating
agency nor can exercise the powers like an appellate
court. It is further observed and held that that question
is required to be examined keeping in view, the contents
of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no
proof. At such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate
evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from
contents of FIR and material relied on. It is further
observed it is more so, when the material relied on is
disputed. It is further observed that in such a situation,
it becomes the job of the investigating authority at such
stage to probe and then of the court to examine
questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such
material as to how far and to what extent reliance can
be placed on such material."
9. In view of the above, no case of interference is made out. As
such this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
