Jharkhand High Court
Arun Mahto @ Arunchandra Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand And Another .... ... on 5 January, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr.M.P. No. 24 of 2015
----
1.Arun Mahto @ Arunchandra Mahto
2.Pappu Mahto @ Pappu Kumar Mahto
3.Sappu Mahto
4.Putul Tuti .... Petitioners
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioners :- Mrs. Jasvinder Mazumdar, Advocate
For the State :- -----
----
5/05.01.2024 Notice upon the O.P.No.2 has been received by the
family member of the O.P.No.2 and till date, nobody has appeared on
behalf of the O.P.No.2. In view of such office note, notice upon the
O.P.No.2 shall be deemed to be validly served.
2. Heard Mrs. Mazumdar, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the
respondent State.
3. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal
proceeding including the order dated 27.05.2014 passed in connection
with Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No.02 of 2011, G.R. No.13 of 2011,
pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at
Dhanbad.
4. The FIR has been registered alleging therein that on 1.1.2011
some boys of the muhalla were enjoying new year. In the meantime,
accused Bajrangi Yadav along with his associates reached to the place
and assaulted them. It is further alleged that after one hour, Bajrangi
Yadav along with other accused persons armed with hockey, lathi, tangi,
chain reached to the place and started assaulting the people of the
locality. They had damaged the motorcycles and shops of the informant
and others. They have also taken away cash and other articles from the
shop.
5. Mrs. Mazumdar, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that the learned court has been pleased to take
cognizance on 27.05.2014 for an occurrence taken place on 01.01.2011
and in view of that, section 468 Cr.P.C. is attracted as the maximum 3
years punishment are prescribed on the said sections on which the
cognizance has been taken. She submits that the case is arising out of
case and the counter case and in view of that, a false case is made out
and the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.
6. The Court has gone through the materials on record including
the contents of the FIR. The Court finds that the occurrence is said to
be occurred on 01.01.2011 and on the same day the FIR was
registered, and if such a situation is there and on the same day the FIR
has been registered and cognizance has been taken later on, that
cannot be a situation where section 468 Cr.P.C be attracted and this
issue is well settled in the Full Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular
Diseases, (2014) 2 SCC 62. Thus, this argument is not accepted by
this Court. The Court finds that there are allegation in the contents of
the FIR of assaulting as well as snatching the motor-cycle by these
petitioners. Thus, there are allegations. Further the learned court has
taken cognizance by order dated 27.05.2014 looking into the
supplementary charge sheet, the case diary and thereafter, has passed
the said order. In a case arising out of police investigation when the
charge sheet is there, the learned court is having the entire materials
before him and he is not required to pass an elaborate order for taking
cognizance. However, if the materials are not there and the leaned
court has taken cognizance, the learned court is required to give the
reasons of taking cognizance. The Court finds that the order taking
cognizance is also in accordance with law. No case of interference is
made out.
8. Interim order is vacated.
9. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/,
