Zahid Khan v. 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Md. Faiyaz Ansari
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1568 of 2015 Zahid Khan ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Md. Faiyaz Ansari -------- ..... … Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ : : ------ 03/ 29.11.2023 Although, notice upon the O.P. No. 2 has been effected, in Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate. Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, A.P.P. For the Petitioner For the State spite of that the O.P. No. 2 has not appeared, that’s why this petition is being heard on merits in absence of O.P. No. 2. 2. Heard Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, learned A.P.P. for the State. 3. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 22.06.2015, by which, cognizance for the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner, in connection with Sisai P.S. Case No. 114 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 529 of 2015, pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gumla. 4. The FIR was lodged as per the written report submitted by one Md. Faiyaz Ansari on 25.04.2015, which is as under:- It has been alleged that on the same day at about 2:30 PM when he reached near Jama Masjid he saw a crowd near tea stall. On going nearer he saw that co-accused Sabir Khan, Zahid Khan, Muslim Khan and others were quarrelling with Md. Mumtaz and suddenly Zahid Khan left the place on motorcycle and went away. It is further alleged that Sabir Khan, Zahid Khan, Muslim Khan Shahid Khan, Khalid Khan, Mohsin Hussain and Wasim Hussain were assaulting Md. Mumtaz Ansari and were asking as to what he would do if they do not give his money, ATM Card and rupees two thousand was snatched by Muslim Ansari and Sabir Khan and left the place by saying that they would not give the money and vehicle. It is also alleged that he and Md. Mumtaz were doing business among themselves and as per his information Mumtaz -2- Ansari sold his bolero car to Sabir Khan and this petitioner (Zahid Khan) on consideration of Rs 6,20,000 to be paid within 3 months. The said vehicle was financed and monthly EMIs was paid through account of Mumtaz Ansari but though three months has been passed payment was not done by the above named persons. In view of the aforesaid allegation, Sisai P.S. Case No. 114/2015 dated 25.04.2015, was registered under sections 341,323,379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the learned court has not taken the cognizance in accordance with law. He further submits that there is no entrustment in view of that Section 406 IPC is not made out. He further submits that the bolero vehicle in question was in the name of Md. Mumtaz Ansari, who given the said vehicle to this petitioner and one other accused person. He further submits that in view of the above, the case is not made out. He relied in the case of Bablu Mitra Versus State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in 2009 (4) JCR 116 (Jhr). 6. Mr. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the State has resisted the argument of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on the ground that the case is made out. He submits that the chargesheet is there and thereafter the learned court has taken the cognizance. 7. In the FIR, there is allegation of not paying the final amount of EMIs, in spite of the demand and whenever the demand was made, threatening was issued. The vehicle in question was being used by the petitioner, however, the same was in the name of Md. Mumtaz Ansari. Thus, the entrustment is there in view of that Section 406 IPC is made out. 8. The learned court has looked into the chargesheet as well as the case diary and thereafter has been pleased to take cognizance. This is not the case where entire materials were not before the learned court. In the form of chargesheet 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 -3- 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. 9. 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 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 chargesheet 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 offence was taken by taking into consideration the chargesheet filed by the police and looking into the case diary. 10. In view of above, there is no illegality in the order taking cognizance. In the case relied by Mr. Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the subject matter of recovery of the amount was there and in view of that allegation the case has been decided. In the case in hand, the possession of the vehicle is with the petitioner and he is not the owner of the vehicle, as such, Section 406 IPC is made out. 11. There is no illegality in the order taking cognizance, as such, no case of quashing is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Amitesh/- (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)