Sanjay Singh vs State of Bihar and Another

Shiva Kirti Singh, J.—Heard the parties and perused the final record which had been called for.

It has been submitted on behalf of Petitioner that although Petitioner is submitted an accused in the first information report but after investigation police submitted charge sheet against other accused persons but did not send this Petitoner Sanjay Singh for trial. It has been submitted that a perusal of the impugned order dated 11.8.2000 passed by the (sic) Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar in case No. 606/2000 shows that the (sic) magistrate initially indicated in the (sic) that Petitioner had been falsely impli(sic) and hence Petitioner was being discussed. However in the later part of the while giving the names of other accused persons against whom cognizance being taken the name of the Petitioner also inserted at two places at the end the list of the accused persons against in cognizance was taken.

On behalf of O.P. No. 2 the information has been submitted that police gave (sic)ng opinion regarding the Petitioner (sic)a fact there are materials available diary against him and therefore cog(sic)e against the Petitioner is proper. (sic)ding to the O.P. No. 2 magistrate has (sic) to differ from the opinion of the (sic) and take cognizance on the basis of materials on record.

In this case the submission added on behalf of the Petitioner is not to affect that magistrate could not differ the opinion of the police report. The submission is that magistrate agreed with opinion of the police and by clear order (sic)rged him. At that stage there was a (sic) petition filed on behalf of the informant dated 29.6.2000 as the original record shows that the learned magistrate did not refer to the same in the impugned order dated 11.8.2000. It is clear that on second thought or on subsequent persuation the name of the Petitioner was added to the list of accused persons against whom cognizance had been taken by the same order initially.

Considering all the facts and the circumstances this Court finds that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar, did not pass proper order in accordance with law. It was not proper for him to accept the version of the police with regard to Petitioner without noticing the protest petition and at the same time when he had accepted the final report with regard to the Petitioner, it was improper for him to include the name of the Petitioner among the list of the accused persons against whom cognizance had been taken.

For all these reasons this Court sets aside the order dated 11.8.2000 with respect to the Petitioner and remands the matter back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for passing a fresh order in accordance with law. This application is allowed to the extent indicated above.