Suresh Ram And ANR. v. State Of Bihar And ANR

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51345 of 2013 dt.22-06-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.51345 of 2013 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -107 Year- 2012 Thana -SIMRI District- BUXAR ===========================================================

1. Suresh Ram, Son of Shivrati Ram, Resident of Village- Chotka Singhanpura, P.S. Simari, District- Buxar

2. Nutan Devi @ Anita Devi, Wife of Suresh Ram, Resident of Village- Chotka Singhanpura, P.S. Simari, District- Buxar .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Shiv Dhayan Ram, Son of Late Calcutai Ram, Resident of Village- Singhanpura, P.S.- Simari, District- Buxar .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 22-06-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State.

2. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the order dated 13.09.2013 passed in Simari P.S. Case No. 107 of 2012, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar, took cognizance for the offence, under Sections 341, 323, 447, 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, against five accused persons named in the F.I.R. including the petitioners differing with the opinion of the Investigating Officer, who submitted the charge sheet against only three accused persons, Shivtri Ram, Kamla Devi and Duleshwari Devi and final form in respect to both petitioners.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51345 of 2013 dt.22-06-2017

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 along with his wife, petitioner no. 2 was in Buxar in connection with teaching in the school as petitioner no. 1 is teacher but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar, illegally took the cognizance for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 447, 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners differing with the final form as submitted by the Investigating Officer against the petitioners.

4. It is well settled that the Magistrate having power to take cognizance is competent to differ with the opinion of the Investigating Officer on perusal of materials available on the record in case diary.

5. On going through the impugned order, I find no illegality in the impugned order amounting to abuse of the process of the court for interference in inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise his defence/points in trial court at the appropriate stage. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 28.04.2017 Transmission Date 28.04.2017