RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
(2.) IN this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 28.11.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla in connection with Basia P.S. Case No. 19 of 1998 corresponding to G.R. No. 234 of 1998 by which cognizance has been taken for the offence u/s 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
(3.) THE prosecution story as would appear from the First Information Report (FIR) instituted by the opposite party No. 2 is that the brother of the informant left his home in the night of 28.4.1998 in a drunken condition. On being informed, the informant searched for his brother, but he could not be traced out. It has been alleged that in the following morning in course of search, the informant found his brother knocking the door of one Bhola Singh. The informant's brother was working as a cook in the house of Bhola Singh. The informant could find some injuries on the persons of his brother and on being asked, his brother disclosed that in the previous night while he was in an intoxicated condition was knocking the door of Bhola Singh and Ram Nath Singh, as a result of which both had assaulted him. It has also been stated that the brother of the informant was admitted in Basia Hospital on 29.4.1998 and he was referred to Ranchi, and ultimately on 1.5.1998 his brother died in the house itself. After investigation was conducted, a final form was submitted by the police as no evidence was found against him. After submission of the final form, notice was issued to the informant and thereafter vide order dated 28.11.2002, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla disagreed with the findings of the investigating officer and took cognizance against the petitioner and one Bhola Singh for the offence u/s 304 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated 28.11.2002 has submitted that the petitioner, who was Block Education Extension Officer at the relevant point of time, has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the police had conducted a proper investigation and even from the statement of the informant as well as the wife of deceased it appears that they have categorically stated that the deceased died on account of Jaundice and not on account of any assault. He has further submitted that the postmortem report also reveals that the deceased was suffering from Jaundice. He has also submitted that while taking cognizance, it has been clearly stated on behalf of the informant that the final report submitted by the police may be accepted as no case is made out against the accused persons. He, therefore, submits that since the informant does not want to proceed with the case, there will be no possibility of conviction of the petitioner and as such in view of the averments made by the informant, the entire criminal proceeding of the present case should be quashed. In this context, he has referred to a judgment delivered in the case of Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2014 6 SCC 466. He has also referred to the case of Shiji @ Pappu and others v. Radhika and another,2012 ACR 116.;