Petitioner, an S.D.O., challenged taking cognizance against him for scientifically improbable allegations. The High Court quashed proceedings on the application of its mind.
Order of taking cognizance of the offence and issuance of process to the petitioner are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRLMC No. 1406 of 2007
11.1.2018
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel. None appe
ars on behalf of the opp. Party in spite of valid service of notice on him.
2. The petitioners have filed this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the
order dated 15.3.2000 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Salipur in 1 C.C. Case No. 38 of 2000 in
taking cognizance of offence under sections 447/294/506/34 I.P.C. and issuing process against
the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of taking cognizance of the
offences has been passed without application of judicial mind because there are four accused p
ersons named in the complaint and particularly it has been alleged that accused no.1, the pres
ent petitioner who is the S.D.O., Electrical dug the land of the complainant which is quite im
probable and imaginary. He further submits that on the same day the petitioner being the S.D.O
., Electrical has been on tour to some other place. Thus, he challenges the order of taking co
gnizance of the offence against the petitioner.
4. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel submits that the plea of defence can only be raised aft
er appearance of the petitioner before the court below, but not at the time of taking cognizan
ce.
5. Considered the submissions of learned counsels for both parties. It is found from the
complaint that four accused persons have been arrayed. Statements of witnesses and statement o
f the complainant show that the petitioner being accused no.1 dug the land of the complainant
to fix electric pole. When accused nos.2 to 4 are employees of accused no.1, it is quite impro
bable for the petitioner who is accused no.1 and S.D.O in that Electrical Division to be invol
ved with such activities. Hence, the order of taking cognizance of the offence against accused
no.1 is not based on application of judicial mind to the materials on record. Accordingly, th
e order of taking cognizance of the offence and issuance of process against the petitioner is
quashed.
The CRLMC stands disposed of accordingly.
Registry is directed to communicate this order to the learned trial court.
Requisites for communication of this order be filed within three working days.
Certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
Dr.D.P.Choudhury, J.
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order taking cognizance against the petitioner can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for lack of application of judicial mind.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
Opposite Party
Dr.D.P.Choudhury
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court