Jharkhand High Court
Mamta Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 407 of 2014
1. Mamta Sinha
2. Pratap Kumar Sinha ..... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Sanjay Hessa ..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Jayant Kumar Pandey, Advocate.
------
13/ 20.04.2023 Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, Mr. Fahad Allam, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Jayant
Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated
10.09.2013, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chaibasa, in connection with Jhinkpani P.S. Case No. 01 of 2013
corresponding to G.R. No. 05 of 2013, whereby, he has been pleased to
take cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections 341,
323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Schedule
Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending
in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa.
3. The FIR was lodged alleging therein that on 25/12/2012,
Mukesh Pan, Munshi was abusing Lobeya Kunkal and Siddharth Pan and
at the instance of contractor, Mukesh Pan lodged F.I.R. in the Police
Station. However, the case was solved by the labourers by making
payment of Rs.500/-. Having come to know about such fact, on
27/12/2012, the labourers stopped the work of contractor as a result
whereof the contractor hired labourers from outside which was protested
by the labourers. On 30/12/2012, Ranjay Pandey, another Munshi, abused
the informant and others. They called John Miran Munda on phone.
During negotiation, the petitioner no. 1 arrived there but John Miran
Munda declined to talk in the matter.
On 1/1/2013 at about 7.30 AM, while the informant was
standing near the main gate, both the petitioners arrived there and the
petitioner No. 1 abused and threatened the informant. The petitioner
No. 2 alleged to have assaulted him.
4. Mr. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that after investigation, the police has submitted the chargesheet,
whereby the petitioners have not been sent up for trial. He submits that the
learned court in absence of protest petition, by the impugned order has
taken the cognizance against the petitioners without providing any reason
of differing with the final form. In that view of the matter, he submits that
the cognizance order is bad in law.
5. Mr. Allam, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that
the final form has been submitted and the learned court has taken the
cognizance on its own and there is no illegality in the cognizance order.
6. Mr. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2
submits that the learned court has rightly taken the cognizance against the
petitioners.
7. In view of such submissions of the parties, the court has gone
through the materials available on record including the order taking
cognizance and finds that the final form was submitted whereby the
petitioners have not been sent up for trial, however the learned court has
taken the cognizance in absence of any protest petition on its own and
there is no reason of differing with the final form.
8. Once the chargesheet has been submitted, the learned court is
having four options, which are as under:-
"(i) He may agree with the conclusion of the police
and accept the final report and drop the proceeding.
(ii) He may take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b)
Cr.P.C. and issue process straightway to the accused
without being bound by the conclusion of the
investigating agency, where he is satisfied that upon
the facts discovered by the police, there is sufficient
ground to proceed.
(iii) He may order for further investigation if
he is satisfied that the investigation was made in
perfunctory manner.
(iv) He may without issuing process and dropping
the proceedings under Sections 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C.
upon the original complaint or protest petition
treating the same as complaint and proceed to act
under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter
whether complaint should be dismissed or process
should be issued."
9. In the case in hand, the learned court has chosen option No.
(ii) and he has taken the cognizance, however the learned court has
not recorded the reason of differing with the chargesheet and also what
materials are found to take cognizance against the petitioners have not
been disclosed. Learned court has also not taken care of to find out
whether there is any whisper in the complaint that the petitioner is not
belonging to the caste of the informant and ingredient is lacking in light of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorige
Pentaiah Versus State of A.P. & Ors., reported in (2008) 12 SCC 531.
10. In view of the above, what materials are there after final form
has also not been discussed in the cognizance order. Accordingly, the order
dated 10.09.2013, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Chaibasa, in connection with Jhinkpani P.S. Case No. 01 of
2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 05 of 2013, whereby, he has been pleased
to take cognizance against the petitioners of the offences under Sections
341, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the
Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chaibasa, is hereby quashed.
11. This petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A., if any,
stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
