AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Rishi Pallava, learned counsel for the petitioners. No one appears for the State.
In this application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 162 of 2012
including the order dated 20.11.2015 passed by the learned C.J.M., Chatra whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence
punishable under Sections 302/301/120B/34 of the I.P.C.
It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the FIR resulted in submission of final form and only on protest petition,
cognizance has been taken and the petitioners have been summoned to face trial. He submitted that there is previous enmity existing between the
parties. It has also been stated that the I.O. has taken the statement of all the witnesses, but none of the witnesses has stated about the involvement
of the petitioners. He further submitted that C.W. 7 has suddenly appeared after a long gap and given evidence which resulted in taking of
cognizance by the learned court below. None of the witnesses have stated about the presence of C.W. 7 and thus the veracity of C.W. 7 creates a
doubt and on such facts and circumstances, the criminal proceedings against the petitioners deserves to be quashed. It has also been stated that
since there was an inimical relation between the petitioners and the C.W. 7, C.W. 7 has therefore turned up and given evidence implicating all the
petitioners.
It appears that the Chatra Sadar P. S. Case No. 24 of 2009 was instituted by the opposite party no. 2 against several persons casting
aspersions that they have might be involved in the murder of the son of the informant. After submission of final form, protest petition has been filed
which was treated as a complaint petition and after conducting an inquiry, the trial court has taken cognizance under Section 302/301/120B/34 of
I.P.C. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that presence of C.W. 7 was not stated by any of the witnesses, but the fact
remains that in course of inquiry, C.W. 7 has stated of he being an eye-witness to the occurrence. Prima-facie therefore the complicity of the
petitioner has appeared and therefore, at this stage it would be premature to decide the veracity or otherwise of the statement of C.W. 7 which he
had given in course of inquiry. In such circumstances, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the order dated 20.11.2015 by which cognizance
has been taken by the learned court below and therefore, this application stands disposed of with a liberty to raise all the points at the appropriate
stage.