w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Tarkeshwar Singh v/s State of Bihar

    Cr.Misc. 51395 Of 2006

    Decided On, 04 January 2007

    At, High Court of Bihar

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GHANSHYAM PRASAD

    For the Appearing Parties: S.B.K. Mangalam, Dinesh Kumar Singh, Gopesh Kumar, N.K. Agrawal, Shambhu Sharan Singh, Advocates.



Judgment Text

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The sole petitioner sought for quashing of the order dated 9-8-2006 passed by Sri V. P. Tiwary, Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra in U.T. Case No. 157 of 2006 thereby and thereunder the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioner and others under Ss. 342, 364-A and 379, I.P.C.

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

r />(3.) The alleged occurrence took place during preliminary election held in 1999. The uncle of the opposite party No. 2 was kidnapped as a result of political rivalry. He has not yet been traced out. First of all the opposite party No, 2 lodged police case before Mashrak P.S. bearing case No. 222 of 1999 arraying this petitioner and others as accused. The police after investigation found the case true but did not find complicity of this petitioner and other named accused. However, on the basis of the protest petition filed by the opposite party the complaint case was registered and the learned lower Court after holding enquiry under S. 202, Cr. P.C. has taken cognizance vide impugned order.

(4.) The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner who was sitting M. L. A. at the relevant time was falsely implicated in this case by his political adversary. He had nothing to do with the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that the police after thorough investigation rightly found no complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offence. The learned Magistrate without properly appreciating the oral evidence has taken cognizance against the petitioner which is abuse of process of the Court. The case has been filed by the opposite party No.2 with mala fide intention and ulterior and oblique motive.

(5.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State submitted that the learned Magistrate after finding sufficient material and ground has taken cognizance against the petitioner and others. It is further submitted that the police after investigation has also found the case true but due to political pressure submitted final report against the petitioner and others. No case has been made out for interference in the impugned order. The learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the petitioner through reasoned order.

(6.) It does not require to mention here that the scope of scrutiny of evidence under Section 204 Cr. P. C. for issue of process is very limited. At this stage, the Court is required only to find out whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused or not. The Court is not required to determine adequacy of the evidence of probability of the accused being guilty. The Magistrate under the law at this stage is not permitted to embark upon meticulous examination of the evidence or material.

(7.) On perusal of the impugned order, it is quite clear that before the Magistrate, there was sufficient material and ground to proceed against the petitioner and issue process under Section 204 Cr. P. C. Only because there is political rivalry between the parties no presumption of innocence of false implication can be inferred in favour of the petitioner at this stage, It can be examined and considered in detail at trial stage only.

(8.) Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances, this petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is hereby rejected. Petition dismissed
O R