Back
2017 Supreme(Pat) 711
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.
Yashwant Kumar Singh @ Yashwant Singh Son of Late Rama Shankar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Bihar - Opposite Parties
Criminal Miscellaneous No.50197 of 2013
Decided On : 28-06-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate
For the State :Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP, Mr. Sunil Kumar, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
The subsequent order modifying the order of cognizance without any further police report was invalid and unknown to law.
Headnote:
Cr.P.C. - Quashing of Order - Sections 341, 323, 379, 504, 506/34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practice Act, 1999 - The court discussed the legality of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the power to withdraw a case from Gram Katchahry, and the amendment of the order taking cognizance. It highlighted the absence of further police report and the invalidity of the subsequent order modifying the order of cognizance.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur in a criminal case. The case was initially registered under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506/34 of the IPC based on a written report. The Chief Judicial Magistrate later amended the provisions under which he had taken cognizance, incorporating an order based on a direction issued by the Superintendent of Police.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the subsequent order modifying the order of cognizance was invalid due to the absence of any further police report. It set aside the impugned orders and quashed Misc. Case No. 05 of 2013, transferring Patori P. S. Case No. 14 of 2012 to the Gram Katchehry.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the power to withdraw a case from Gram Katchahry, and the amendment of the order taking cognizance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the subsequent order modifying the order of cognizance was invalid in the absence of any further police report, and the practice of amending the order based on extraneous material was unknown to law.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were set aside, Misc. Case No. 05 of 2013 was quashed, and Patori P. S. Case No. 14 of 2012 was transferred to the Gram Katchehry.
1. Heard Mr. Dhanajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the informant/opposite party no. 2.
2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) has been filed for quashing the order dated 05.03.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2013, arising out of Patori P. S. Case No. 14 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 165 of 2012 whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has withdrawn Patori Case No. 14 of 2012 from Gram Katchahry after cancelling its jurisdiction and has reviewed his earlier order of cognizance.
3. The aforementioned Patori P. S. Case No. 14 of 2012 was registered on the basis of the written report submitted by opposite party no. 2 Arvind Singh on 21.01.2012. In the written report, it was alleged that when the informant reached his house on 20.01.2012 at 7 p.m., he saw that the petitioner and other accused persons were abusing his mother and calling her to be a daain. When the informant protested, they assaulted him by fist. He has further alleged that one Mannu Singh picked up his mobile and one Mithilesh Singh took away Rs.1400/- from his pocket. He has stated that on alarm, Ajit Singh and Hem Narayan Singh reached there and saw the incident. He has stated that he was taken to Primary Health Centre, Mohanpur for treatment. It is alleged that the accused persons threatened the informant/opposite party no. 2 and his mother in various ways. On the basis of the aforementioned written report of the informant, the first information report (for short ‘FIR’) was registered under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).
4. The police investigated the case and on completion of investigation submitted its report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate.
5. After taking into consideration the materials available on record, including the report of the police submitted under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C., the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506/34 of the IPC against the accused persons, vide order dated 13.02.2012.
6. Since the offences under which cognizance was taken were triable by a bench of gram katchahry, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide aforementioned order dated 13.02.2012 passed in Patori P.S. Case No. 14 of 2012, transferred the case to the Gram Panchayat, West Dhanipatti for trial and its disposal.
7. After the aforementioned order dated 13.02.2012 was passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the informant filed an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur, which was registered as Misc. Case No.5 of 2013 stating therein that after submission of charge-sheet in Patori P. S. Case No. 14 of 2012, he had made an application to the DIG of Police, Darbhanga for further investigation of the case and on his application, the matter was further investigated in which the allegations under Section 379 of the IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practice Act, 1999 were found true. The informant prayed in the aforesaid Misc. Case that the order dated 13.02.2012 passed in Patori P. S. Case No. 14 of 2012 be recalled and after quashing the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat, cognizance be taken inter alia under Section 379 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practice Act, 1999.
8. It would be evident from the record of aforesaid Misc. that at the instance of the informant, on 05.03.2013, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cancelled the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat in Patori P. S. Case No. 14 of 2012 and on the basis of the copy of the report as contained in Memo No. 13228 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur, which was sent to the investigating officer of
