Disclosure of prima facie materials and reasons for differing with the final form is essential for the court to take cognizance in a criminal proceeding.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Md. Zafar Alam, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 14.07.2016 passed in C.P. Case No.2260 of 2014, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

3. The protest cum complaint petition was filed by the complainant against final form submitted by the police in Nirsa P.S. Case No.17 of 2014, in which the complainant, inter alia, has stated that Sanjay Singh, who is the son of the complainant came in contact of Asha Singh, wife of late Manoj Singh in the year 2012. It has also been stated that Asha Singh was a teacher in New Popular Academy. After coming into contact with Sanjay Singh, Asha Singh, who had informed him about the harassment meted out to her by the hands of people of her matrimonial home and she further asked her to save her from their constraint and restrictions. It has also been stated that Sanjay Singh who is a journalist raised voice against the complaint of Asha Singh. Asha Singh was done to death by her in-laws on 27.02.2013. It has been further stated that due to protest made by Sanjay Singh, the in-laws of Asha Singh, the accused persons had entered into the house of the complainant and started abusing and assaulting and broken valuables and in course of that they also taken away a Samsung mobile of the son of the complainant. It has been further stated that the accused persons threatened the complainant and said that they should keep away from the matter of killing/suicide of Asha Singh. On 27.09.2013 also, the accused entered into the house of the complainant and assaulted Vijay Singh and they had also broken television set, computer etc. and they had also looted ornaments amounting to Rs.2,50,000/-.

4. Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said FIR was investigated by the police and the police has not sent up the petitioners for trial. He further submits that final form is on the record, wherein, it has been recorded that due to earlier case filed by the petitioners, as a vengeance, present case has been filed. He also submits that the learned court has taken cognizance pursuant to protest petition filed by opposite party no.2 and that too what are the prima facie materials, has not been disclosed in the order taking cognizance. He further submits that reason of differing with the final form, has not been disclosed in the order taking cognizance. On these grounds, he submits that entire prosecution is malicious in nature.

5. Mr. Md. Zafar Alam, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that final form has been submitted and on the protest petition, the learned court has after going through the solemn affirmation and enquiry witnesses, has taken cognizance. There is no illegality in the order taking cognizance.

6. Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned court has rightly taken cognizance as materials have come in the protest petition, filed by opposite party no.2.

7. In view of the above facts and the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on the record and finds that the said FIR was investigated by the police. The final form has not been submitted against the petitioners. Looking to the final form, annexed with this petition, it transpires that the petitioners have earlier lodged the case against opposite party no.2 in which son of opposite party no.2 was languished in jail for some time and as a vengeance, the present case has been filed. Looking to the order taking cognizance, it transpires that what are the materials in the protest petition as well as solemn affirmation and enquiry witnesses, has not been disclosed in the order taking cognizance. Why the learned court has differed with the final form, the reason has also not been