Jharkhand High Court
Ram Nandan Paswan @ Raj Nath Paswan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 January, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr.M.P.No.2356 of 2021
Ram Nandan Paswan @ Raj Nath Paswan, aged about 67 years, son of
late Jitan Paswan, resident of Patna Line, Bajrang Chowk, P.O. Sidhgora
and PS Sidhgora, Town-Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum (Jharkhand)
..... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate
----
2/04.01.2022 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.
This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire
criminal proceeding as well as order taking cognizance dated 04.06.2020
in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No.22 of 2020, corresponding
to Sidhgora P.S. Case No.169 of 2019 pending in the court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (POCSO), at Jamshedpur.
The case was lodged stating therein that the prosecution as
per the FIR in brief is that the victim aged about five years is daughter of
informant. The informant was doing work of maid in the house of the
accused Ram Nath Paswan. It is alleged that the accused used to do
obscene act with minor victim daughter. It is alleged that when the
victim feel pain in her private part, then the informant asked to her
daughter who disclosed that when informant used to work, the accused
took her victim daughter to show TV and he did obscene act with her
daughter. It is alleged that the accused person did such act several times.
When she asked then her daughter told that Dadu did the alleged act
with her on pretext of showing T.V.
Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is aged about 67 years and the entire
allegation against the petitioner is false. He submits that the wife of the
petitioner had also lodged FIR being SC/ST Birsa Nagar P.S.Case
No.11/2019 against the informant and other co-accused persons. He
submits that after investigation the I.O submitted final form showing lack
of evidence against the petitioner and inspite of that the learned court
has taken cognizance against the petitioner. He submits that there is no
reason assigned on differing.
It is well settled that no detailed order is required to be
passed for passing any order for summoning the accused but in the case
where final form has been submitted in favour of the accused and the
Magistrate is intending to proceed on a complaint petition, he is required
to make reasons of differing with the final form which has not been done
in the case. There is no doubt that the concerned court should differ and
it is within its jurisdiction of the court but to take cognizance, for that
reason is required to be disclosed in the order which has not been done
in the case in hand.
A reference may be made to the case of "Nupur Talwar v.
Central Bureau of Investigation and Another", (2012) 11 SCC 465.
Paragraph no.19 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:
"19. Since CBI wanted the matter to be closed, it was
appropriate though not imperative for the Magistrate
to record reasons, for differing with the prayer made
in the closure report. After all, CBI would have surely
wished to know, how it went wrong. But then, there
are two other important factors in this case, which
further necessitated the recording of reasons. Firstly,
the complainant himself (Dr. Rajesh Talwar, who
authored the first information report dated
16.05.2008) was being summoned as an accused.
Such an action suggests, that the complainant was
really the accused. The action taken by the
Magistrate, actually reversed the position of the
adversaries. The party which was originally pointing
the finger, is now sought to be pointed at. Certainly,
the complainant would want to know why."
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent State opposes the prayer made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner.
In the case in hand, the learned court has differed
with the charge sheet and taken cognizance. In the cognizance
order the reason has not been assigned as to why cognizance is
required to be taken against the petitioner. In view of settled law
the impugned order dated 04.06.2020 passed in connection with
Special (POCSO) Case No.22 of 2020, corresponding to Sidhgora
P.S. Case No.169 of 2019 pending in the court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (POCSO), at
Jamshedpur is hereby set aside.
The matter is remitted back to the concerned court
to pass fresh order in light of the settled proposition of law in
this regard.
Disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)
SI/
