Ankur Kuamr @ Ankur Yadav @ Ankur ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 2266 Jhar

                                         1

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                         Cr.M.P. No. 593 of 2022
                                        ----

Ankur Kuamr @ Ankur Yadav @ Ankur Kumar Verma, aged about 28 years s/o Birendra Kumar Verma, r/o village Asehar, PO Asehar, PS Panki, District Palamau at present r/o Semar Tanr, Birsa Nagar, PO and PS Chainpur, District Palamau ..... Petitioner

-- Versus --

The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Pankaj Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the State :- Mr. B.N. Ojha, Advocate

----

5/27.06.2022 This petition has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 10.06.2021 and entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chainpur P.S.Case No.09/2016, corresponding to G.R.Case No.145/2016 for the offences alleged under sections 302, 201, 120(B) of the IPC, pending in the court of learned SDJM, Palamau.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to supplementary charge sheet the petitioner's name has been disclosed and no charge sheet has been submitted against two persons. He submits that the learned court by order dated 10.06.2021 observed that cognizance has already been taken on 13.3.2019 and the same cognizance order is applicable to the above mentioned accused. He submits that second cognizance order is bad in law.

It is settled that if the further investigation has been done would lead to the filing of a supplementary report. Such supplementary report shall be dealt with as part of the primary report. This is clear from the fact that the provisions of Sections 173(3) to 173(6) would be applicable to such reports in terms of Section 173(8) of the Code. A reference may be made to the case "Binay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali", (2013) 5 SCC

762. Paragraph nos. 41 to 43 of the said judgment are quoted herein below:

"41. Having discussed the scope of power of the Magistrate under Section 173 of the Code, now we have to examine the kinds of reports that are contemplated under the provisions of the Code and/or as per the judgments of this Court. The first and the foremost document that reaches the jurisdiction of the Magistrate is the first information report. Then, upon completion of the investigation, the police is required to file a report in terms of Section 173(2) of the Code. It will be appropriate to term this report as a primary report, as it is the very foundation of the case of the prosecution before the court. It is the record of the case and the documents annexed thereto, which are considered by the court and then the court of the Magistrate is expected to

exercise any of the three options aforenoticed. Out of the stated options with the court, the jurisdiction it would exercise has to be in strict consonance with the settled principles of law. The power of the Magistrate to direct "further investigation" is a significant power which has to be exercised sparingly, in exceptional cases and to achieve the ends of justice. To provide fair, proper and unquestionable investigation is the obligation of the investigating agency and the court in its supervisory capacity is required to ensure the same. Further investigation conducted under the orders of the court, including that of the Magistrate or by the police of its own accord and, for valid reasons, would lead to the filing of a supplementary report. Such supplementary report shall be dealt with as part of the primary report. This is clear from the fact that the provisions of Sections 173(3) to 173(6) would be applicable to such reports in terms of Section 173(8) of the Code.

42. Both these reports have to be read conjointly and it is the cumulative effect of the reports and the documents annexed thereto to which the court would be expected to apply its mind to determine whether there exist grounds to presume that the accused has committed the offence. If the answer is in the negative, on the basis of these reports, the court shall discharge an accused in compliance with the provisions of Section 227 of the Code.

43. At this stage, we may also state another well-settled canon of the criminal jurisprudence that the superior courts have the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code or even Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct "further investigation", "fresh" or "de novo" and even "reinvestigation". "Fresh", "de novo" and "reinvestigation" are synonymous expressions and their result in law would be the same. The superior courts are even vested with the power of transferring investigation from one agency to another, provided the ends of justice so demand such action. Of course, it is also a settled principle that this power has to be exercised by the superior courts very sparingly and with great circumspection."

In view of the observation made in this case, the supplementary report is required to be considered at the time of framing of charge. The learned court has not taken second cognizance order and in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Binay Tyagi"(supra), there is no illegality in the impugned order. No interference is required.

This petition is dismissed.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

SI/