The trial court must provide reasons for differing from the investigating officer's findings; failure to do so renders the cognizance order null and void.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK KUMAR PANDEY, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the Informant.

2. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - VI cum Special Judge, SC/ST Court, Nalanda at Biharsharif in connection with Special SC/ST Case No. 136 of 2023 arising out of Noorsarai P.S. Case No. 301 of 2023 registered under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 506/34 of the IPC, and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v)(a) of SC/ST Act and later on Section 302 of IPC was added, whereby and whereunder summons have been issued against the appellant and Lakshman Mahto after taking cognizance under Sections 341, 323, 302, 504, 506/34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act against the appellant and other.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, informant alongwith his father was working in agricultural field and the four accused persons including the appellant were grazing their buffaloes near the said agricultural field. When the buffalo of accused persons entered in the agricultural filed of informant, then, informant’s father went and tried to stop the buffaloes from entering the said field. Meanwhile, all accused persons started abusing the informant by using caste name and when the same was protested, then, co-accused Daroga Mahto assaulted the informant’s father upon his head by means of khanti attached with lathi as result of which informant’s father sustained injury. Thereafter, all the accused persons started assaulting the informant’s father by means of lathi as a result of which he became unconscious. It is alleged that on raising alarm, nearby people started gathering due to which all the accused persons ran away.

4. On the basis of written statement of informant, Noorsarai P.S. Case No. 301 of 2023 has been registered under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 506/34 of the IPC and Section 3(1) (r)(s), 3(2)(v)(a) of SC/ST Act. Later on, Section 302 of the IPC was added.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the occurrence took place on 01.07.2023 and FIR was lodged on 05.07.2023 i.e. after delay of about four days and the reason of delay has not been explained. He further submits that there is no specific allegation against the appellant. He further submits that in the present case, supplementary charge sheet no. 194 of 2024 has been submitted against some of the accused persons but appellant and co-accused Lakshman Mahto were not sent up for trial but the learned trial court has taken cognizance against the appellant and co-accused Lakshman Mahto also while differing from the opinion of Investigating Officer but no reasoning has been cited by the learned trial court. In this way, the order of the cognizance passed by the concerned court is not justified and legal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon decision of S.M. Mahtab Ahmed Vs. State of Bihar, 2016 (4) PLJR 508 in which at para 8 and 9 of the said decision it has been held as follows:-

8. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record including the Lower Court Record After going through the record. it is evident that the complaint petition was thoroughly investigated by Investigating agency and thereafter, it was found that it was not a case of criminal offence, rather the investigating officer had noticed that it was a civil dispute Accordingly petitioner's name was not included in column no. 11 of the charge sheet. Meaning thereby that petitioner was not forwarded as accused in the case and final report was submitted. So far as point, which has been raised by the learned counsel for the complainant that even in business transaction, there can be case o