Chandeshwar Rai vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the State through Video Conferencing. The lawyers have no

objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through Video Conferencing today at 11.00 a.m. They have no complain in respect to the

audio and video clarity and quality.

Petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.08.2020 passed in Pakuria Police Station Case No.42 of 2011 (G.R. No.367 of 2020), whereby

petitioner has been summoned to appear in this case as an accused.

The main ground taken by the petitioner is mentioned in paragraph 11 of the petition. Counsel for the petitioner submits that cognizance was taken

on 03.11.2012 for offence punishable against the chargesheeted accused, whereas the petitioner was not chargesheeted. Thus, according to the

petitioner, without taking cognizance, petitioner has been summoned.

For better appreciation, paragraph 11 of the petition is quoted hereinbelow: -

That, it is submitted that initially cognizance was taken on 03.11.2012 for the offences punishable against the chargesheeted witnesses wherein the

petitioner was not chargesheeted and the impugned order reveals that without taking cognizance against the petitioner he has directed to appear in the

original case record which is in fact not in accordance with law and requires interference of this Hon'ble Court.

First Information Report has been registered as Pakuria Police Station Case No.42 of 2011 for offences under Sections 409, 420, 120(B), 149, 506,

467, 468, 471 and 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Bihar (Jharkhand) Prevention of Specified Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. The

police investigated and filed chargesheet, keeping the investigation pending. Upon the said chargesheet, cognizance was taken on 03.11.2012. The

Court took cognizance and issued summons. A supplementary chargesheet has been filed showing the petitioner to be accused. On the supplementary

chargesheet, the Court below passed impugned order dated 07.08.2020 holding that since cognizance of the offence has already been taken in the

original case record in G.R. No. 559 of 2011 vide order dated 03.11.2012, there is no necessity to take cognizance for the same offence and thereafter

summons have been issued. Grievance of the petitioner is that, without taking cognizance, summons have been issued to the petitioner.

Cognizance is taken for the offence and not against the accused. In this case since cognizance was taken way back on 03.11.2012 itself, the Court

below rightly held that no fresh cognizance of the offences needs to be taken and thereafter has issued summons. I find no illegality in the impugned

order.

This criminal miscellaneous petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate application praying for discharge, which will be considered by the Court below at an appropriate stage.