The central legal point established in the judgment is that the chargesheet showed a mistake of facts and that the iron scrap and iron pipes were being transported under valid documents, leading to the quashing of the F.I.R. and consequential proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. Tanya Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of F.I.R. dated 14.06.2007 in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 155 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. No. 1840 of 2007 and order taking cognizance dated 12.02.2008 along with consequential proceedings pertaining to the aforesaid case, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad.

3. The F.I.R. has been lodged alleging therein that the informant along with his police personnel on the basis of secretive information received, intercepted a 407 Truck bearing Registration No. BR 17G 4059 on which iron pipes and other iron articles were loaded. The driver tried to flee away when the informant gave signal to stop the vehicle, however, later on he changed his mind and stopped the vehicle. The driver disclosed his name as Kamlesh Choudhary and also disclosed the name of the truck owner as Purushottam Singh. He further disclosed that the said iron scraps were loaded from Shakti Traders and also from possession of one Jitu Saw and further told that the said scraps were to be unloaded at Kumardhubi Steel Private Limited. The driver also produced the challan of Shiv Shakti Traders dated 14.06.2007 as well as tax invoice. When the informant removed the ‘tirpal’ covered the truck, he found iron pipes, iron sheets and several other articles which were loaded on the truck for which no paper was produced by the driver. Further the aforesaid articles were not iron scraps. Thus, in presence of independent witnesses, a seizure list was prepared and a case was registered under section 413/414/34 of the I.P.C.

4. At the outset, Ms. Tanya Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no omission and commission. She submits that a bare perusal of F.I.R. indicates that total five persons have been made accused in the F.I.R. namely, Kamlesh Choudhary, the driver of the mini truck, Purshottam Singh, the owner of the mini truck, Jitu Saw, proprietor of the Kumardhubi Steel Pvt. Ltd. and Proprietor of Shiv Shakti Traders. She further submits that the petitioner is proprietor of the Kumardhubi Steel Pvt. Ltd. She further submits that the police has investigated the case and submitted chargesheet against the accused persons showing the case as mistake of facts. She further submits that by order dated 12.02.2008 the learned court below took cognizance against the accused persons under sections 413/414/34 of the Indian Penal Code. She further submits that the iron scrap and iron pipes were being transported under valid documents. She further submits that co-accused namely Jitu Saw @ Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Saw has moved Cr. M.P No. 610 of 2008 and co-accused namely Purushottam Kumar Singh @ Purushottam Singh, Om Prakash Singh and Kamlesh Choudhry have moved Cr. M.P. No. 1144 of 2013 for quashing of cognizance order dated 12.02.2008 which were allowed vide order dated 22.08.2012 and 20.08.2013 respectively by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court contained as Annexure-4 and 5 of the petition.

5. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in the cognizance order and the learned court below has rightly taken cognizance.

6. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that chargesheet was submitted showing mistake of facts however, learned court below took cognizance vide order dated 12.02.2008. So far as co-accused persons namely, Jitu Saw @ Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Purushottam Kumar Singh @ Purushottam Singh, Om Prakash Singh and Kamlesh Choudhry are concerned, this Court has already quashed the cognizance order dated 12.02.2008 in Cr. M.P. No. 610 of 2008 and Cr. M.P. No 1144 of 2013 coming to the conclusion that iron scrap and iron pipes were being transported under valid documents. Valid document has not been denied by the State in the counter-affidavit.