M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) BY this application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 23.1.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in G.R. Case No. 4219 of 2005 whereby cognizance for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act was taken against the petitioners on the basis of protest petition filed by the informant.
(2.) THE aforesaid G.R. Case No. 4219 of 2005 arose out of Topchanchi P.S. Case No. 160 of 2005 on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by the informant stating inter alia that the night guard of the petrol pump had come to his house and asked him to follow him to the petrol pump. Accordingly, the informant came to the petrol pump and found his elder son Washim Hussain lying dead since one Rinku Singh had fired shot at him causing his death. The cause of occurrence as stated by the informant is that before the S.T.D. Booth of the informant, there was already a S.T.D.. Booth of Rajjak Mian and the petitioners forbid the informant to open S.T.D. Booth. The informant suspected hands of the petitioners behind the murder of his son. The police took up investigation and submitted charge -sheet against one Rakesh Kumar Singh alias Rinku Singh and submitted final form against the petitioners. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, however, in terms of impugned order took cognizance of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act against these Sunanda Nandi Versus State Of Jharkhand petitioners also. Mr. B.M. Tripathi, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioners, assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. According to learned counsel, the Court below could not have taken cognizance of the offence after submission of final form against the petitioners without holding fresh inquiry in accordance with law. According to the learned counsel, the only course open to the trial Court was to issue notice under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after complicity of the petitioners to come in surface after examining the witnesses in course of the trial. In this context, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Kishori Singh and Others V/s. State of Bihar and Another (2004)13 S.C.C. 11, and in the case of Ram Sanjiwan Singh & Others V/s. State of Bihar, 1996 Cr.L.J. 2528.
(3.) MR . Jai Prakash, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the informant on the other hand, submitted that the Court below has not committed any error of law in taking cognizance for the offence against these petitioners also after perusing police report and the case diary. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of H.S. Bains V/s. The State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1883 and in the case of M/s India Carat Pvt. Ltd. V/s. State of Karnataka and Another A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 885.;