IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.54628 of 2007 DHANANJAY SINGH, SON OF LATE BANWARI SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BELAUR, P.S. GUTHANI, DISTT. SIWAN. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE BALIRAM SINGH, R/O VILLAGE BELAUR, P.S. GUTHANI, DISTT. SIWAN. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 6. 7.10.2010. Heard Shri Surendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Shri Raghav Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 and Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, 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 13.11.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan in G.R. No.1052 of 2006 arising out of Guthani P.S. Case No.42 of 2006. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Short fact of the case is that on 25.5.2006 at about 16.00 hours, ferdbeyan of 2 injured Gorakh Singh was recorded at Primary Health Centre, Mairwa by Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. In the ferdbeyan, the informant had disclosed that number of accused persons including the petitioner had brutally assaulted him and thereafter, he was carried to Mairwa Primary Health Centre where his statement was recorded. On the basis of ferdbeyan of injured Gorakh Singh, an F.I.R. vide Guthani P.S. Case No.42 of 2006 was registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 307 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. F.I.R. was registered against altogether eight accused persons including the petitioner. After registering the F.I.R., police started investigation. However, on 28.5.2006, the informant, who was injured, succumbed to his injuries and thereafter, the dead body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination. After investigating the case, police submitted charge sheet against other accused persons. However, investigation, so far as petitioner is concerned, was kept pending and at subsequent stage, on 31.1.2007, final report was submitted by the police exonerating the 3 petitioner. After submission of the final report, the learned Magistrate examined the materials available on record and by the impugned order, has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition. It was filed on 5.12.2007. However, subsequently on 6.2.2008, the petition stood rejected due to non prosecution, but subsequently, it was restored. On 26.3.2010, after hearing, this Court summoned the case diary and while summoning the case diary, this Court also directed for issuance of notice to opposite party no.2 and in the meanwhile, it was directed to stay the order of cognizance. It is a peculiar case in which despite the fact that injured had already died, who was informant in the case, the petitioner has even chosen to implead a dead person as opposite party no.2. However, Shri Raghav Prasad, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of relative of the deceased. Shri Surendra Kumar Singh, learned 4 counsel for the petitioner, while pressing the present petition, has submitted that the order of cognizance is palpably incorrect or illegal order due to the reason that after submission of final report, the learned Magistrate was not at all authorized to take cognizance. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his argument, has referred to a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2004(13) SCC 11 (Kishori Singh Vs. State of Bihar) as well as a judgment of this Court. Of course, learned counsel for the petitioner has given the reference of the case, but at the time of hearing, he has not bothered to place any fact of that case. Learned counsel for the petitioner, besides questioning the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate, has further submitted that there were no materials showing involvement of the petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner was, at the relevant time, a Government Teacher and on the date of occurrence, he was already on election duty. During investigation, police thoroughly investigated the same and thereafter, police 5 had submitted final report. Accordingly, it has been prayed to set aside the impugned order. In view of earlier order, case diary has been received, which is on record. I am myself have perused some paragraphs of the case diary, which indicates that some of the witnesses had also corroborated the accusation made by the injured informant, who subsequently, succumbed to his injuries. In the case diary, I have also perused the postmortem report. I am of the view that since there were sufficient materials on the record, the learned Magistrate, while taking cognizance of the offence, has committed no error. Moreover, while taking cognizance of the offence even against the petitioner, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had transferred the case record to concern Magistrate where after cognizance, in respect of other accused persons, case was pending for committal proceeding. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner admits that now the case has already been committed to the court of Sessions and same is pending before the Sessions Judge. 6 Keeping in view the fact that there were sufficient materials on record to proceed with the case, the court is of the opinion that the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the offence. Moreover, in view of change circumstances i.e. now since the case has already been committed to the court of Sessions, it would not be appropriate for this Court to examine order of cognizance, which was passed long back in the year 2007. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Petition stands rejected. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay dated 26.3.2010 stands automatically vacated. Since the matter remained pending before this Court for a long time, it is desirable to direct the concerned court to proceed with the case expeditiously so that the case may come to its logical end without any further delay. With above observation and direction, the petition stands rejected. Office is directed to remit back the original case diary, which was received 7 N.H./ earlier along with copy of this order. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)