Back
Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALTAMAS KABIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK
Uma Shankar Singh
Versus
State of Bihar & Another
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CRL.) No.5123 of 2009
Decided on : 09-09-2010
(1989) 2 SCC 132; (1967) 3 SCR 668 – Relied upon
(1996) 4 SCC 495; (1998) 7 SCC 149; (1993) 2 SCC 16; (2004) 13 SCC 9 – Referred
Facts of the Court:
On 17th February, 2000, one Vijay Singh, brother of Bharat Singh (deceased) and Damodar Singh, who was an independent candidate in the elections to the Bihar Assembly, lodged a FIR in which it was indicated that Damodar Singh, the informant’s brother was contesting the elections to the Bihar Assembly as an independent candidate. While the polling of votes was in progress, Bharat Singh was sitting in the Election office when he received information that bogus votes were being cast at a particular booth and upon hearing a bomb explosion he proceeded to the place where the incident was taking place. The informant reached the place in a jeep while Bharat Singh followed him on a motorcycle. On learning that a boy had sustained injuries they went to the hospital.
When they were leaving the hospital premises, Uma Shankar Singh who was a candidate in the Assembly election, and his son Jitendra Swami, accompanied by some unknown persons armed with different weapons, arrived at the place of occurrence and on the orders of Uma Shankar Singh, his son Jitendra Swami pulled down Bharat Singh from his motorcycle, pushed him into his car and drove out to an unknown destination.
Initially, the FIR was lodged under Section 364/34 IPC, but after the body of Bharat Singh was found, Sections 302, 291/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act were also added. The investigation was transferred to the CID.
The informant, Vijay Singh, challenged the same in Crl. W.J.C., which was disposed of by the High Court observing that the matter appeared to be a fight between two political personalities and when investigation had already been completed by one agency and was also to be completed by the CID, the question would arise as to whether the investigation report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. would have to be filed both by the first investigating agency and also by the CID. The High Court directed the CID and the Superintendent of Police, Siwan, to submit their reports to the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate within two months from the date of the order and upon such report being submitted, the Chief Judicial Magistrate was directed to proceed according to law after considering both the reports and the case diary.
By virtue of the order of the High Court, investigation continued both by the CID and the local police and it was decided to file a report in final form against the Petitioner, though some other accused were charge-sheeted. The Chief Judicial Magistrate differed with the Final Report submitted by the investigating agency to take cognizance against Jitendra Swami and some other accused persons.
The Petitioner filed an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharge from the case. The First Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan rejected the petitioner’s prayer for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and fixed a date for framing of charge.
The Petitioner filed Crl. Misc. Case in the High Court for quashing the order passed by the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Siwan, rejecting the Petitioner’s prayer for discharge from the case.
The High Court dismissed the Crl. Misc. Case.
Finding of the Court:
Even if investigating agency submitted final report exonerating the accused the Magistrate can apply his mind and take cognizance on the basis of materials before him.
Instantly, as charges have been framed against the petitioner the present proceedings are rendered infructuous.
Result:
SLP dismissed.
Key Points: - Even if the investigating agency submits a final report exonerating the accused, the Magistrate can apply his mind and take cognizance on the basis of materials before him (!) (!) . - The Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance on the police report itself under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C., even if the accused is exonerated by the investigating agency (!) . - Charges framed against the petitioner rendered the Special Leave Petition infructuous, as the remedy available under Section 227 Cr.P.C. was no longer available (!) .
Judgment :
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.
1. On 17th February, 2000, one Vijay Singh, brother of Bharat Singh (deceased) and Damodar Singh, who was an independent candidate in the elections to the Bihar Assembly, lodged a First Information Report with Maharajganj Police Station which was recorded as Maharajganj P.S. Case No.14 of 2000. In the said F.I.R. it was indicated that Damodar Singh, the informant's brother was contesting the elections to the Bihar Assembly as an independent candidate. While the polling of votes was in progress, Bharat Singh was sitting in the Election office when he received information that bogus votes were being cast at a particular booth and upon hearing a bomb explosion at about 11.30 a.m., he proceeded to the place where the incident was taking place. According to the F.I.R. version, the informant reached the place in a jeep while Bharat Singh followed him on a motorcycle. On reaching the place they were informed that a boy had sustained injuries and had been rushed to the Maharajganj State Hospital for treatment.
2. When they were leaving the hospital premises, Uma Shankar Singh who was a candidate of the Samata Party in the Assembly election, and his son Jitendra Swami, accompanied by some unknown persons armed with different weapons, arrived at the place of occurrence and on the orders of Uma Shankar Singh, his son Jitendra Swami pulled down Bharat Singh from his motorcycle, pushed him into his car and drove out to an unknown destination.
3. Initially, the FIR was lodged under Section 364/34 IPC, but after the body of Bharat Singh was found, Sections 302, 291/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act were also added. The matter created a lot of turmoil which resulted in the investigation being transferred to the CID. The informant, Vijay Singh, becoming unnerved by the said decision of the State Government, challenged the same in Crl. W.J.C. No.288 of 2000, which was disposed of by the High Court on 9th April, 2001, upon observing that the matter appeared to be a fight between two political personalities and when investigation had already been completed by one agency and was also to be completed by the CID, the question would arise as to whether the investigation report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. would have to be filed both by the first investigating agency and also by the CID. The High Court directed the CID and the Superintendent of Police, Siwan, to submit their reports to the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate within two months from the date of the order and upon such report being submitted, the Chief Judicial Magistrate was directed to proceed according to law after considering both the reports and the case diary.
4. By virtue of the order of the High Court, investigation continued both by the CID and the local police and it was decided to file a report in final form against the Petitioner, though some other accused were charge-sheeted. However, after examining the materials in the case diary, the Chief Judicial Magistrate differed with the Final Report submitted by the investigating agency to take cognizance against Jitendra Swami and some other accused persons.
5. This led the Petitioner to file an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharge from the case. The said application was taken up for consideration by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan, who by his order dated 9th March, 2007, rejected the petitioner's prayer for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and fixed a date for framing of charge.
6. The Petitioner thereupon filed Crl. Misc. Case No.18909 of 2007 in the Patna High Court for quashing the order passed by the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Siwan, on 9th March, 2007, rejecting the Petitioner's prayer for discharge from the case.
The High Court dismissed the Crl. Misc. Case vide its order dated 12th May, 2009. This Special Leave Petition was filed on 17th July, 2009, against the said judgment and order of the High Court.
7. On behalf of the Petitioner it was urg
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
