Jharkhand High Court
Devendra Kumar @ Priya Ranjan Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 29 November, 2023
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1 Cr.M.P. No. 1646 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1646 of 2015
1. Devendra Kumar @ Priya Ranjan Yadav
2. Sitaram Yadav
3. Shiv Pujan Yadav ... Petitioners
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, A.P.P.
-----
07/29.11.2023 Heard Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the State.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance
dated 10.11.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Hazaribagh in Sadar (Mufassil) P.S. Case No. 477/2014, corresponding to
G.R. Case No.1812/2014, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Hazaribagh.
3. The FIR was lodged alleging therein that on 17.05.2014, the Assistant
Sub-Inspector of Muffasil Police Station, Hazaribagh along with other police
personnel were on patrolling and at about 14:30 hours, he received
confidential information that some coal traders after purchasing coal from
C.C.L's local mines meant for Jharkhand was sending the same to Banaras
Mandi for illegal gain and they are using wrong permit for transporting the
coal to different destination by changing of route. After receiving this
information, the informant after giving information to senior officer and
after taking required direction, started checking vehicles at Mukunganj
Chowk at NH-33. In course of checking, Truck No.JH-10AD-3839 was found
coming which was intercepted and on enquiry, the driver and khalasi of the
said truck disclosed their name and address and produced papers of coal
dated 16.05.2014. From perusal of the paper, it was found that the
purchaser Asha Enterprises has purchased 20 Tonne coal and from perusal
of the document, it further appears that the said coal was to be transported
within the State of Jharkhand. The driver and cleaner of the truck, on
enquiry, disclosed that on the direction of one Sanjay Kumar Agrawal and
the truck owner, they were transporting the coal to Banaras Mandi. The
informant thereafter instituted the instant case on the ground that the
Commercial Tax Department of Jharkhand has stopped using pink colour
JVAT 504P Form w.e.f. 31.03.2014 and thus, the owner of the coal has used
the old form for transporting the coal purchased from CCL and was meant
for sale within Jharkhand was being transported to different State instead of
going to Japla through Daltonganj and, accordingly, the instant FIR was
lodged.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are
bonafide purchaser of the coal in question in e-auction. He further submits
that only allegation is that the petitioners were taking coal outside the State
of Jharkhand. He submits that apart from that, nothing has been found
against the petitioners. He further submits that the case of the petitioners is
covered in view of the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(Cr.) 382 of
2015.
5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer made in the petition
and submits that the allegations are there against the petitioners.
6. The Court has perused the contents of the FIR and finds that there
are allegations of manipulating manual permit for making out challan to
transport the coal outside the State of Jharkhand. Thus, the allegations are
there. Further, charge-sheet has been submitted and pursuant to that, the
learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioner
looking into the charge-sheet as well as the relevant paragraphs of the case
diary, which was recorded in the order dated 10.11.2014.
7. The learned court has looked into the chargesheet as well as the case
diary and, thereafter, he has been pleased to take cognizance. This is not a
case where entire materials were not before the learned Court. In the form
of charge-sheet and the case diary, the entire materials are available before
the learned Court and pursuant to that, the learned Court has been pleased
to take cognizance. At the time of issuing process, the learned Magistrate is
mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the
evidence led in support of the same and the learned Magistrate is only to be
satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the
accused. When issuing summons, the learned Magistrate need not explicitly
state the reasons for his satisfaction that there are sufficient grounds for
proceeding against the accused. It is not necessary for the learned
Magistrate to examine the merits and demerits of the case and whether the
materials collected is adequate for supporting the conviction. The Court is
not required to evaluate the evidence and its merits. The standard to be
adopted for summoning the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C. is not the
same at the time of framing the charge.
8. At the stage of taking cognizance of the offence based upon a police
report and for issuance of summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C., detailed
enquiry regarding the merits and demerits of the case is not required. In
cases instituted on a police report, the learned Magistrate is only required to
pass an order issuing summons to the accused. Such an order of issuing
summons to the accused is based upon subject to satisfaction of the
learned Magistrate considering the police report and other documents and
satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused and the learned Magistrate is not required to record any reason. In
case, if the charge sheet is barred by law or where there is lack of
jurisdiction or when the charge-sheet is rejected or not taken on file, then
the learned Magistrate is required to record his reasons for rejection of the
charge-sheet and for not taking on file. The cognizance of the offence was
taken by taking into consideration the charge-sheet filed by the police and
looking into the case diary.
9. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners is on
other footing. In that case, the allegation of manipulation with regard to
challan was not there. In view of that, the judgment relied by the learned
counsel for the petitioners is not helping the petitioners.
10. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, no case of
interference is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
