The High Court
Case Details
1 Cr.M.P. No. 1646 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1646 of 2015 1. Devendra Kumar @ Priya Ranjan Yadav 2. Sitaram Yadav 3. Shiv Pujan Yadav -Versus- … Petitioners The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party -----
Legal Reasoning
covered in view of the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(Cr.) 382 of 2015. 5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer made in the petition and submits that the allegations are there against the petitioners. 6. The Court has perused the contents of the FIR and finds that there are allegations of manipulating manual permit for making out challan to transport the coal outside the State of Jharkhand. Thus, the allegations are 3 Cr.M.P. No. 1646 of 2015 there. Further, charge-sheet has been submitted and pursuant to that, the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioner looking into the charge-sheet as well as the relevant paragraphs of the case diary, which was recorded in the order dated 10.11.2014. 7. The learned court has looked into the chargesheet as well as the case diary and, thereafter, he has been pleased to take cognizance. This is not a case where entire materials were not before the learned Court. In the form of charge-sheet and the case diary, the entire materials are available before the learned Court and pursuant to that, the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance. At the time of issuing process, the learned Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and the learned Magistrate is only to be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. When issuing summons, the learned Magistrate need not explicitly state the reasons for his satisfaction that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. It is not necessary for the learned Magistrate to examine the merits and demerits of the case and whether the materials collected is adequate for supporting the conviction. The Court is not required to evaluate the evidence and its merits. The standard to be adopted for summoning the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C. is not the same at the time of framing the charge. 8. At the stage of taking cognizance of the offence based upon a police report and for issuance of summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C., detailed enquiry regarding the merits and demerits of the case is not required. In cases instituted on a police report, the learned Magistrate is only required to pass an order issuing summons to the accused. Such an order of issuing 4 Cr.M.P. No. 1646 of 2015 summons to the accused is based upon subject to satisfaction of the learned Magistrate considering the police report and other documents and satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and the learned Magistrate is not required to record any reason. In case, if the charge sheet is barred by law or where there is lack of jurisdiction or when the charge-sheet is rejected or not taken on file, then the learned Magistrate is required to record his reasons for rejection of the charge-sheet and for not taking on file. The cognizance of the offence was taken by taking into consideration the charge-sheet filed by the police and looking into the case diary. 9. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners is on other footing. In that case, the allegation of manipulation with regard to challan was not there. In view of that, the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not helping the petitioners. 10. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, no case of interference is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Ajay/ (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Arguments
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners For the State : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, A.P.P. ----- ----- 07/29.11.2023 Heard Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 10.11.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in Sadar (Mufassil) P.S. Case No. 477/2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1812/2014, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh. 3. The FIR was lodged alleging therein that on 17.05.2014, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Muffasil Police Station, Hazaribagh along with other police personnel were on patrolling and at about 14:30 hours, he received confidential information that some coal traders after purchasing coal from C.C.L's local mines meant for Jharkhand was sending the same to Banaras Mandi for illegal gain and they are using wrong permit for transporting the coal to different destination by changing of route. After receiving this information, the informant after giving information to senior officer and after taking required direction, started checking vehicles at Mukunganj Chowk at NH-33. In course of checking, Truck No.JH-10AD-3839 was found coming which was intercepted and on enquiry, the driver and khalasi of the 2 Cr.M.P. No. 1646 of 2015 said truck disclosed their name and address and produced papers of coal dated 16.05.2014. From perusal of the paper, it was found that the purchaser Asha Enterprises has purchased 20 Tonne coal and from perusal of the document, it further appears that the said coal was to be transported within the State of Jharkhand. The driver and cleaner of the truck, on enquiry, disclosed that on the direction of one Sanjay Kumar Agrawal and the truck owner, they were transporting the coal to Banaras Mandi. The informant thereafter instituted the instant case on the ground that the Commercial Tax Department of Jharkhand has stopped using pink colour JVAT 504P Form w.e.f. 31.03.2014 and thus, the owner of the coal has used the old form for transporting the coal purchased from CCL and was meant for sale within Jharkhand was being transported to different State instead of going to Japla through Daltonganj and, accordingly, the instant FIR was lodged. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are bonafide purchaser of the coal in question in e-auction. He further submits that only allegation is that the petitioners were taking coal outside the State of Jharkhand. He submits that apart from that, nothing has been found against the petitioners. He further submits that the case of the petitioners is