Suresh Chandra Dubey @ Suresh Dubey And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. They have no complain with respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.

By filing this application, petitioners have challenged the order dated 8.11.2019 by which cognizance has been taken.

Earlier, this order was set aside on the ground that the same was cryptic and does not reflect any material as to why cognizance was taken and the

concerned petitioners were summoned. After remanding the matter, the court below, has passed the detailed order.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution story is absolutely improbably. There is delay in lodging the FIR. In the complaint there were

reference to two witnesses but in the impugned order reference of several witnesses are given which casts doubt upon investigation. He submits that

Paragraph no.6 of the complaint suggests that there are two dates of occurrence and in fact on the first date the deceased died because of accident.

Second date of occurrence has been mentioned wherein it has been stated that on that date i.e 01.12.2007 some persons entered the house and

committed murder of the deceased and thereafter villagers took the dead body and burnt the same. He submits that cognizance has been taken under

Section 302 IPC against all the accused persons which could not have been taken, as there is no such allegation that all accused persons have

committed murder rather there is allegation that they have disposed of the dead body.

After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, I find that court below has passed a detailed order, referring to the statement given by the witnesses

which has been recorded in the case diary. Court below has arrived at a conclusion that the offence under Section 302, 201, 307, 385, 504 IPC is

made out and then took cognizance.

It is well settled that cognizance is taken against the offence not against the offender. In this case I find that offence is made out to take cognizance.

So far as the submission of the petitioner that cognizance could not have been taken under Section 302 IPC against all the accused persons, I feel that

cognizance has been taken against the offence. So far the material which surfaced against each of the accused persons and whether they can be tried

under Section 302 IPC or not, will be seen at the time of framing of charge and not at the time of taking cognizance. Moreover when the impugned

order clearly refers to the statement of the witnesses and concludes that there are materials to take cognizance of offence and issue summon to the

petitioner, which is a speaking and detail order, I am not inclined to entertain this application, challenging the order of cognizance. Thus this application

stands dismissed.

Petitioner is at liberty to raise all points at the time of framing of charge.