Pithoria, Dist. Ranchi (Jharkhand) v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
1 Cr.M.P. No.4351 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 4351 of 2022 Shahbaj Ansari @ Sahbaz Ansari, aged about 25 years, son of Alam Ansari, R/o Village- Piru Tola (Ichapiri), P.O. & P.S.- Pithoria, Dist. Ranchi (Jharkhand) .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Opp. Party P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Anupama Kumari, Advocate : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl. P.P. ….. By the Court:- 1. 2. Heard the parties. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 25.04.2022 as well as the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner in connection with Pithoria P.S. Case No.34 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No.1219 of 2017. 3. The brief facts of the case is that police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 25(1-b)a/26 of Arms Act. The learned Magistrate namely Ms Kaveri Kumari, JMFC Ranchi took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 2591-b)a/26 of 2 Cr.M.P. No.4351 of 2022 Arms Act vide order dated 09.09.2020 in connection with Pithoria P.S. Case No.34 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No.1219 of 2017 and left the space between the words ‘put up on’ and ‘for appearance’ blank. 4. The petitioner earlier moved before this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 3058 of 2021 and a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.03.2022 set aside the order dated 09.09.2020 and remitted the matter back to the concerned court to pass fresh order in accordance with law and after that, the same learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class- IX, Ranchi namely Ms Kaveri Kumari in a reckless manner took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 25 (1-b)a/26 of the I.P.C. though the charge sheet was submitted for the offence having been committed under the penal provision of the Arms Act and not I.P.C. The said Magistrate again committed the same mistake by leaving the space between the words ‘put up on’ and ‘for appearance’ blank. 5. Further though vide order dated 05.04.2022 of the said learned Magistrate, the case was fixed to 25.04.2022 for taking cognizance as is evident from page no. 50 of the brief but the learned Magistrate, apparently passed the order on 16.04.2022 as is evident from the date mentioned in print in the impugned order and the date 16.04.2022 also been mentioned under the signature of the learned Magistrate in the said order itself and the learned Magistrate has score cut the date of the order from 16.04.2022, as mentioned in print and wrote the date of the order by pen as 3 Cr.M.P. No.4351 of 2022 25.04.2022 but the date beneath the signature appearing in the same page has remained as 16.04.2022. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name has been cropped up on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused during the investigation of the case. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is totally non- application of mind of the learned Magistrate in passing the order and she simply is not interested in discharging the duty as a Judicial Magistrate. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation made against the petitioner is false. Hence it is submitted that the order taking cognizance dated 25.04.2022 as well as the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner in connection with Pithoria P.S. Case No.34 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No.1219 of 2017 be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposes the prayer for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 25.04.2022 as well as the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner in connection with Pithoria P.S. Case No.34 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No.1219 of 2017 but fairly submits that the learned Magistrate has committed error by taking cognizance of the offences punishable under the penal provision of Indian Penal Code instead of taking cognizance of the offences punishable under the penal provisions of the Arms Act and also 4 Cr.M.P. No.4351 of 2022 repeated the error by leaving the space blank between the words ‘put up on’ and ‘for appearance’ for the second time. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Judicial Magistrate namely Ms Kaveri Kumari has committed a blunder by repeating the mistake of keeping the space between the words ‘put up on’ and ‘for appearance’ blank for the second time even though the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.03.2022 in Cr.M.P. No. 3058 of 2021 specifically observed this mistake on her part; apparently in utter disdain of the said order of the coordinate bench of this Court. 9. It is needless to mention here that the Judicial Magistrate is expected to be alert and attentive while discharging the judicial work. For the first time, in the earlier order dated 09.09.2020 in the same Pithoria P.S. Case No. 34 of 2017, apparently, because of printing error, the learned Magistrate has erroneously mentioned that cognizance is taken of the offence punishable under Section 2591-b)a/26 of Arms Act; the figures 2591 has been printed as instead of bracket ‘(‘the figure ‘9’ has been misprinted but on the second time, after the matter was remitted, the Magistrate has again committed a graver error by mentioning that cognizance is taken of the offence punishable under Section 25(1-b)a/26 of I.P.C. instead of taking the cognizance under the penal provision of the Arms Act as the charge sheet was submitted for the penal provision having been committed by the petitioner under the 5 Cr.M.P. No.4351 of 2022 penal provisions Arms Act; and no justification has been furnished by the learned Magistrate as to why it has taken the cognizance for the offences punishable under the penal provisions of I.P.C. 10. Further, it appears that the learned Magistrate fixed the case on 25.04.2022 for taking cognizance but the case was placed before it on 16.04.2022. The date of the order was printed in the order sheet for taking cognizance as 16.04.2022. The learned Magistrate has signed the said order by mentioning the date 16.04.2022 beneath the signature but later on realizing her mistake, she has apparently interpolated the record by cutting the date of the order from 16.04.2022 to 25.04.2022 which is also not expected from a Judicial Magistrate. 11. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order purported to have been passed on 25.04.2022 in G.R. No. 1219 of 2017, corresponding to Pithoria P.S. Case No. 34 of 2017 is quashed and set aside. 12. 13. The matter is remanded to the concerned court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Before parting, it is pertinent to mention here that the Registrar General of this Court is directed to place the matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice in Administrative side for considering appropriate disciplinary action against the Judicial Magistrate concerned. 14. Let a copy of this judgment be supplied to the Registrar General of this Court for the needful. 6 Cr.M.P. No.4351 of 2022 15. 16.
Decision
In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. The interim order if any, granted earlier stands vacated. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 21st November, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)