Sukhdev Rajwar @ Shukhdev Rajwar aged about 24 years son of Ashwini Rajwar, resident v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3105 of 2023 ------ Sukhdev Rajwar @ Shukhdev Rajwar aged about 24 years son of Ashwini Rajwar, resident of village- Chapatand, P.O. Kura, P.S. Pindrajora, District-Bokaro … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioner For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Nitish Kr. Sahani, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 10.08.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro in G.R. Case No.913 of 2023 arising out of Pindrajora P.S. Case No.08 of 2022 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro upon submission of the charge-sheet against the petitioner has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under section 323, 325, 341 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the said case is now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro. 3. The brief facts of the case is that on 23.01.2022, the petitioner attempted to murder the informant by assaulting on his head with a peace of suspension plate used in the motor vehicle causing injuries on the head of the informant; when the informant was riding a two-wheeler. By such assault, the informant 1 Cr. M.P. No.3105 of 2023 fell down on the ground from the two-wheeler and after that, the petitioner rode over the chest of the informant and with a suspension plate repeatedly assaulted the petitioner and throttled the neck of the petitioner with that plate. Because of such throttling of neck, the informant became senseless. The witnesses came after hearing hue and cry of the petitioner; after being assaulted initially and the witnesses of the case rescued the informant. Police after investigation of the case found the allegations to be true and submitted charge- sheet against the petitioner for having committed offences punishable under Section 323, 325, 341 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent upon the same, cognizance of the offences has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case due to previous enmity and the order taking cognizance is a non-speaking order. A single injury alleged to have been received by the informant. Hence, no offence punishable under Section 325/307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. The injury report of the informant shows that he was treated in a private hospital namely Muskan Hospital, Chas, Bokaro. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer made by the petitioner in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer made by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 10.08.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro in G.R. Case No.913 of 2023 arising out of Pindrajora P.S. Case No.08 of 2022 and submits that the undisputed fact remains that the informant sustained injury on 2 Cr. M.P. No.3105 of 2023 his head. It is next submitted that Muskan Hospital, Chas, Bokaro is a hospital having specialized treatment facility and in case of serious nature of injury, the patients prefer the private hospital to that of Sadar Hospital, Bokaro; which is not equipped with similar kind of advance treatment facility. It is then submitted that therefore, merely because the informant/victim was treated in a private hospital having specialized treatment facilities, the same can no way diminish the veracity and the gravity of the injury sustained by the informant/victim; particularly when such injuries having been caused to the informant, is not disputed by the petitioner. It is next submitted that the injuries sustained by the informant can be caused by the suspension plate of the vehicle by which the informant claimed to have been assaulted by the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that as there is overwhelming evidence in the record to bring home the charge for the offences punishable under Section 325 as well as 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner, therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner did not dispute head injury sustained by the informant/victim nor the petitioner disputes that the informant/victim was treated in a private hospital namely Muskan Hospital, Chas, Bokaro. There is a direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of causing head injury to the informant with a suspension plate while the informant/victim was travelling in a two-wheeler which is no doubt if found to be true, is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 3 Cr. M.P. No.3105 of 2023 7. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the order taking cognizance is a non-speaking order is concerned, it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in (2019) 20 SCC 539 paragraph-23 of which reads as under: - “23. Insofar as taking cognizance based on the police report is concerned, the Magistrate has the advantage of the charge-sheet, statement of witnesses and other evidence collected by the police during the investigation. Investigating officer/SHO collects the necessary evidence during the investigation conducted in compliance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and in accordance with the rules of investigation. Evidence and materials so collected are sifted at the level of the investigating officer and thereafter, charge-sheet was filed. In appropriate cases, opinion of the Public Prosecutor is also obtained before filing the charge-sheet. The court thus has the advantage of the police report along with the materials placed before it by the police. Under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, where the Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence upon a police report and the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate directs issuance of process. In case of taking cognizance of an offence based upon the police report, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing the process. In cases instituted on a police report, the 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 Magistrate considering the police report and other documents and satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In a case based upon the police report, at the stage of issuing the summons to the accused, the 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 Magistrate is required to record his reasons for rejection of the charge- sheet and for not taking it on file.” (Emphasis supplied) that in case of taking cognizance of the offences based on police report, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing the process. In cases instituted on the police report, the Magistrate is only required to pass an order issuing summons to the accused. 4 Cr. M.P. No.3105 of 2023 8. Now coming to the facts of the case, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro has taken cognizance based on the report of the police submitted under Section 173 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure i.e. the charge-sheet. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court do not find any illegality on the part of the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro in taking cognizance on this score also. 10. Because of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. 11. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 24th of July, 2024 AFR/ Saroj 5 Cr. M.P. No.3105 of 2023