IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.54342 of 2007 INDAL YADAV @ INDRADEO YADAV, SON OF LATE DAMODER YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MOHANPUR SIRPURHATI, P.S. PANDAUL, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SATIYA DEVI W/O SITARAM SODAI, VILL. BHAWANIPUR, LAHERIAGANJ, MADHUBANI. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 8. 22.11.2010. Heard Shri Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Umesh Lal Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 12.11.2007 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani in G.R. Case no.442 of 2006. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 307, 302, 341, 323, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(X) of S.C./S.T. Act. Short fact of the case is that the petitioner along with other persons were named an accused in Madhubani Town P.S. Case 2 No.98 of 2006 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 379, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(X) of S.C./S.T. Act. During investigation, due to death of the injured, Section 302 of the Indian penal Code was added. The petitioner along with seven other accused persons were named in the F.I.R. After conducting investigation, police, on 10.5.2006, submitted charge sheet against only two accused persons. However, the petitioner and other remaining accused persons were exonerated by the police. It appears from the order dated 16.5.2006 that after submission of the charge sheet, learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence in respect of two accused persons. However, the petitioner and other accused persons were exonerated. Subsequently, a supplementary charge sheet in the case was submitted against six accused persons including the petitioner and thereafter, by order dated 12.11.2007, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. Shri Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while questioning the order of 3 cognizance, submits that once the petitioner was exonerated by the police, during investigation, at subsequent stage without obtaining permission from the learned Magistrate, the Investigating Agency was not authorized either to start further investigation or to submit charge sheet. It was submitted that without any fresh material, the petitioner was not required to be made accused by the Investigating Agency during further investigation. It has been submitted that it is true that police has got power to further investigate, but only on the basis of fresh material, the police was required to either further investigate or submit charge sheet. Shri Umesh Lal Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner, has submitted that after submission of the first charge sheet, the matter was examined by the Senior Police Officials including the D.G.P. and thereafter, for further investigation, the Investigating Officer was directed to approach the concerned Magistrate for granting permission. Subsequently, a 4 petition was filed before the learned Magistrate and only thereafter, the learned Magistrate observed that the Investigating Agency was at liberty to investigate further in the case. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that during further investigation, other witnesses were examined, who had categorically stated that this petitioner and other accused persons were directly involved in the case. After conducting further investigation and collecting sufficient materials showing involvement of the petitioner, the police has submitted supplementary charge sheet and as such the learned Magistrate, while taking cognizance on the basis of supplementary charge sheet, has committed no mistake. Accordingly, it has been prayed to reject the prayer of the petitioner. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record including the case diary. From the case diary, it appears that before conducting further investigation, the concerned Magistrate was well intimated and thereafter, further investigation was 5 N.H./ conducted. During further investigation, witnesses were examined, who had categorically disclosed showing involvement of the petitioner and other accused persons. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the learned Magistrate, while taking cognizance on the basis of supplementary charge sheet, has committed no error. I do no find any ground for exercising inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay dated 5.3.2008 stands automatically vacated. Let a copy of this order as well as the case diary, which was earlier received, be sent to the concerned court. With above observation and direction, the petition stands rejected. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)