Inconsistencies in evidence, lack of reasons for differing with the final form, and the deceased's criminal antecedents led to the quashing of the order taking cognizance.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been taken through Video Conferencing in view of guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 26.02.2015, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 147, 149, 304 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners in Protest-cum-Complaint Case No. 3156 of 2014, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

4. The prosecution case is based on protest-cum-complaint petition filed by Maqbool Ansari against the petitioners. The complainant/informant earlier lodged the case and subsequently the police has submitted final form thereafter a protest-cum-complaint case being No. 3156 of 2014 was filed and in the complaint case, it was alleged that on 01/02.11.2013 at about 02:00 a.m. all accused persons/petitioners assaulted Tafajul Ansari @ Kolha in the house of accused persons by the means of Lathi and other dangerous weapons on his face and thrown him from the roof of the house, due to which Tafajul Ansari sustained grievous injuries over the face and his entire body. He was taken to the referral hospital Mandar for treatment, from there he was referred to RIMS for better treatment. On the way to RIMS, Tafajul Ansari told and disclosed before the witnesses and the complainant of the case about the alleged occurrence. He was admitted in RIMS but at about 12:00 p.m. on 02.11.2013 he died during treatment. The police deliberately without proper enquiry and investigation submitted final form in the case and hence the protest-cum-complaint case was filed by the complainant. It was further alleged that the said deceased was brutally assaulted by the accused person and the said injured already stated the facts to the complainant on the way while he was taken for treatment to RIMS, Ranchi and as such the accused persons brutally murdered the said deceased and in collusion and connivance the police has submitted final form and, hence, the complaint case was filed.

5. Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially the complainant namely Maqbool Ansari had filed a case for the same incident with Mandar Police Station vide Mandar P.S. Case No. 118 of 2013 registered under Section 147/304 of the Indian Penal Code alleging therein that in the night of 1-2/11/2013 at about 02:00 a.m. in the night his nephew Sanjay Ali @ Bablu telephonically informed him that Kolha uncle i.e. the deceased Taffazul Ansari had entered in the house of Nageshwar Sahu and felled down from the roof of the house on account of which his leg has been fractured and after getting the information, the informant along with one Shamim Akhtar went to the house of Nageshwar Sahu where Kolha was not there and Nageshwar Sahu disclosed that he had entered in their house and while fleeing away he jumped from the roof of the house due to which he had sustained injuries. He further submits that after investigation the police has submitted final form against the petitioners and the allegations were not found true and specially it has come that the deceased was a habitual thief and was indulged in several cases and while committing theft in the house of Nageshwar Sahu in order to flee away from there, he jumped from the roof of house and sustained injuries and subsequently died. He also submits that after submission of the final form, protest-cum-complaint case was filed and thereafter cognizance has been taken vide order dated 26.02.2015. He further submits that the petitioner has also lodged FIR against Kolha