- (1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner, in this application filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., has prayed for quashing the order of cognizance dated-11.07.2006, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa in G.R. Case No. 923 of 2002, arising out of Ranka P. S. Case No. 88 of 2002, whereby after taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the I.P.C., the petitioner has been summoned to face trial.
(3.) The short account of events, relevant for the disposal of this application are as follows: A First Information Report was lodged at the Police Station on 29.11.2002, which was registered for the offences under Section 364 of the I.P.C. on the allegation that the informant's son Rajesh was abducted by some unknown persons. The F.I.R. was registered against unknown though one Hanumant Babu was named in the F.I.R. on the basis of the statement that there was a hot talk between the victim and the said Hanumant Babu in the night of 28.11.2002. Three more persons, namely Chappu Ram, Anwar and the present petitioner were also named in the F.I.R. stating that they had visited the house of the informant in the night of 28.11.2002 at about 9:30 p.m., searching for the informant's son. In course of investigation, the dead body of the deceased was found and the Post-mortem Report conducted on the dead body, indicated that the deceased had suffered death by poisioning. A suicidal note was also recovered from the place, where the dead body was found. After concluding the investigation, the Police submitted final report declaring that there was insufficient evidence against the accused persons, namely Chhapu Ram @ Ravi, Anwarul Haque @ Anwar and Had Shankar Pandey, namely, the present petitioner. The informant thereafter, filed a Protest Petition, alleging thatthe Investigating Officer has misdirected the investigation, although there was ample evidence in the case diary against the accused persons. Upon receipt of the Protest Petition, the Chief Judicial Magistrate perused the case diary and by drawing the inference that there was circumstantial evidence which denotes that the deceased was intentionally administered poision by the accused persons and disbelieving the suicidal note of the deceased and treating the purported circumstantial evidence as prima facie material, proceeded to take cognizance for the offences under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the I.P.C. against altogether six accused persons, including the present petitioner.;