IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.20819 of 2006 MUKHLAL PASWAN, Son of Asharfi Paswan, Resident of Khutauna, P.S. Khutauna, Distt. Madhubani. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CBI. . . . . . . Opp. Party. For the Petitioner : Mr. A. H. Khan, Advocate For the C.B.I. : Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, Advocate ----------- 18/ 31.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the C.B.I. The petitioner prays for quashing the impugned order of taking cognizance dated 23.12.2002 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Patna for the offence under Sections 120 B, 302, 342, 182 & 193 of the Indian Penal Code relating to R.C. No. 4 (S)/2001/SC-I/DL (Bihariganj P.S. case no. 244 of 1998). One Santosh Kumar Singh sustained injuries pursuant to which he succumbed. In this respect, two First Information Reports were instituted, one by this petitioner, who on the relevant date i.e. 12.12.1998, was posted as officer-in-charge of Barhara Police Station in the District of Purnia. The First Information Report lodged by the petitioner has been registered as Barhara P.S. case no. 130 of 1998 under Sections 399, 402, 353, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, three days after the occurrence, a complaint case was filed by Dhirendra Prasad Singh, father of the deceased, Santosh Kumar Singh, which was referred for institution of a regular case under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. giving rise to Bihariganj P.S. case no. 244 of 1998. In Barhara P.S. case no. 130 of 1998, the petitioner alleged that a notorious criminal Tolwa Singh is camping in Chaitola along with other criminals. On receipt of the information, the informant - 2 - along with other police personnel made raid. The miscreants instead of surrendering opened fire on the police party. Kumar Sanjay, Sub- inspector of Police and Raj Prakash Thakur, other police personnel opened 2-3 rounds of fire from their service revolvers. In course of movement, the informant saw an injured lying in the middle of the village and on query he disclosed his name as Santosh Kumar Singh, son of Dhirendra Prasad Singh, resident of Village Jutaili, P.S. Bihariganj, District Madhepura. On the other hand, the other informant, Dhirendra Prasad Singh, father of the deceased, alleged that 30-35 police personnel including this petitioner, who was the officer-in-charge of Barhara P.S. came to village Jotaily and ordered for indiscriminate search of houses to catch suspected criminals, who may be hiding. In course of search, the police raided the house of Jagdish Jha, where Santosh Kumar Singh (deceased) had come to fetch milk. The petitioner stopped and abused him, which was protested by Santosh Kumar Singh and by the villagers. In fact, the petitioner did not listen and opened fire from his revolver injuring Santosh Kumar Singh, who subsequently succumbed to the injuries. Counsel for the petitioner states that after two years, both the cases were handed over to the C.B.I. Learned counsel further submits that in course of investigation the police found that Kumar Sanjay and Ram Prakash Thakur had opened fire from the service revolver in defence. He further contended that the service revolver of this petitioner was not even examined by the police or by the C.B.I. - 3 - Furthermore, the witnesses of Bahara P.S. case no. 130 of 1998 lodged by the petitioner, have supported his version, in their statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate contained in Annexure-6 series. The C.B.I. submits that the police in course of investigation found the case lodged by the petitioner to be false and submitted charge-sheet against him in the instant case, filed by father of deceased after investigating 60 witnesses and perusing several documents. He further submits that cognizance was taken in 2002, whereas the instant quashing application has been filed in 2006, after more than four years. He further stated that one Arbind Kumar Jha, a police personnel, who was also a member of raiding party had also moved this Court against the impugned order taking cognizance and this Court by order dated 22.03.2007 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 28775 of 2004, dismissed the same. He further submits that charges have been framed in this case in the year, 2004 and by now more than 15 witnesses have been examined out of 61 witnesses. He further submits that at the time of filing of this petition, charges were already framed and some witnesses were also examined, which facts have been suppressed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. submits that Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab reported in A.I.R. 1960 SC 866 has held that in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 561-A, the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. - 4 - Learned counsel submits that in case of State of West Bengal and another Vs. Abdul Aziz and others reported in A.I.R. 1995 SC 785, the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph 78 stated that at the stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate may not give a reasoned order. The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that at this stage the Court need not undertake an elaborate enquiry and weigh the materials and nor is it necessary to delve deep into various aspects. All that the Court has to consider is whether the evidentiary materials on record if generally accepted, would reasonably connect the accused with the crime. I find that the learned Magistrate after perusing the materials on record rightly observed that there are sufficient materials for taking cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 120 B, 201, 302, 342, 182 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is a named accused in Bihariganj P.S. case no. 244 of 1998 (R.C. No. 4 (S)/2001/SC-I/DL). The charge-sheet also shows that there are materials against the petitioner involving his implications in the instant case. As such, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order taking cognizance. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)