ANANDA SEN,J. - (1.) (C.A.V.) - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. In this application the petitioners have challenged the order dated 18.11.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa in G.R. No. 255 of 2008, whereby differing with the police report, cognizance for the offence under sections 302, 201, 307, 385 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken and the accused persons have been summoned.
(2.) The brief, point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, in view of the judgment delivered in the case of Bigan Mian @ Siraj Mian v. State of Jharkhand as reported in 2014 (2) JLJR 95 , and Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, as reported in (2012) 11 SCC 188 , the Magistrate has to assign reasons while differing with the police report. In this case, since no such reasons have been assigned, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.
(3.) An F.I.R. was lodged under sections 302, 201, 307, 385 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code by the informant. After investigation, the police filed a final form bearing Final Form No. 66 of 2010 with a finding that an offence under section 304(A) only of the Indian Penal Code is made out. The learned Magistrate differed with the said police report and took cognizance of offence under sections 302, 201, 307, 385 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and issued process.;