Back
2011 Supreme(Pat) 2504
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJENDRA KR. MISHRA, J.
Jamshed Hussain – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Bihar – Opposite Parties
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 35876 of 2008
Decided on: 23.12.2011
For the Petitioner:Mr. Chandra Kant, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, A.P.P.
The court emphasized the importance of strong suspicion and the careful exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent the abuse of the court's process.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Indian Penal Code, Sections 302, 201, 379/34 - Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 227
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge. The case involved the murder of the petitioner's brother and the petitioner's alleged involvement in the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no strong suspicion about the petitioner's involvement in the occurrence and that the criminal proceeding against the petitioner was an abuse of the court's process.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to frame charges against the petitioner for the murder of his brother.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for framing of the charge, there should be a strong suspicion about the involvement of the accused in the occurrence. It also emphasized that the court's jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised with great care to prevent the abuse of the court's process.
Final Decision: The impugned order rejecting the petitioner's petition for discharge and the criminal proceeding against the petitioner were quashed, and the application was allowed.
1. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is to quash the order dated 18.6.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Saran, Chhapra, in Sessions Trial No.242 of 2008, rejecting the petition of the petitioner filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge.
2. The brief facts of the case is that on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant-opposite party no.2, Dina Nath Singh, Chhapra Rail P.S. Case No.89 of 2007 was instituted under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown on 11.11.2007. In his farebeyan, the informant-opposite party no.2, Dina Nath Singh, has alleged that his younger brother, Upendra Kumar Singh, at about 4.00 A.M. in the morning of 11.11.2007, had proceeded for Chhapra Junction. He came to know from one Mritunjay Singh at about 7.30 A.M. that his younger brother, Upendra Kumar Singh, has been murdered at Railway line, near Jagdamb College, Dhala. On receiving such information, he reached at the alleged place of occurrence and saw that his younger brother, Upendra Kumar Singh, is lying dead pooled with blood in between meter gauge line, where his red coloured hand bag, goggles and white coloured cap were lying. The informant-opposite party no.2 raised suspicion that with an intention to snatching, the criminals have committed this occurrence. It is further alleged that his younger brother, Upendra Kumar Singh, had mobile phone bearing no.9835676665 but that was not there. His brother was also in possession of M.S.T. (from Chhapra to Hajipur) bearing no.19025259, which was valid upto 19.11.2007, cash Rs.2200/- and S.B.I. ATM card bearing no.6220180015300271721. The informant-opposite party no.2, also alleged that his younger brother, Upendra Kumar Singh, was working in Rural Development Department, Patna-2.
The police on investigation of the case submitted the chargesheet dated 17.2.2008 against the accused-petitioner under Sections 302 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code continuing the further investigation in the case and later on, submitted the supplementary chargesheet against the accused, Mantu Kumar Rai, son of Chhotey Lal Rai, on 31.8.2008 under the aforesaid Sections. After commitment of the case to the court of sessions, numbered as Sessions Trial No.242 of 2008, the accused-petitioner filed the petition under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge, which was rejected through the impugned order dated 18.6.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Saran, Chhapra.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made submission that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and nothing incriminating has been collected against him in course of investigation except that from the mobile phone of the deceased, Upendra Kumar Singh, the co-accused, Mantu Kumar Rai, had talked with the petitioner in the evening of the alleged date of occurrence and on interrogation, the petitioner has disclosed that the aforesaid co-accused, Mantu Kumar Rai, asked him to pay the price of the milk as was due against him and nothing else, but the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, illegally rejected the petition of the petitioner filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge.
4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State, made submission that the name of the petitioner has come in course of investigation in paragraphs-87, 110, 115, 118 and 119 of the case diary, as such, the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Saran, Chhapra, has rightly rejected the petition of the petitioner filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge.
5. It appears from the F.I.R. that on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant-opposite party no.2, Dina Nath Singh, Chhapra Rail P.S. Case No.89 of 2007 was instituted under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown on 11.11.2007 regarding
