The High Court rejected a petition challenging the order of cognizance summoning accused under the SC/ST (POA) Act. The Court held that the lower court was correct to differ from the police report, find prima facie case, and summon accused under Sections 3(2)(ii) and 3(4) of the Act.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.1833 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2017 Thana- ASHOK PAPER MILL DistrictDarbhanga
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kedar Jha, Adv For the Opposite Party/s : Smt Usha Kumari No-1, APP ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as
learned APP.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1833 of 2019(2) dt.01-02-2019 2/3
informant had instituted APM PS Case No. 19/2017. It has also been submitted that after investigation police has submitted final report observing that the allegation has been found untrue. Furthermore, it has also been submitted that from contents of the FIR of case no. 19/2017, it is evident that there was dispute of Shia and Sunni and for that, police was deputed at that very place. In the presence of police, such kind of activity no one could imagine. In the totality of event, it has been submitted at the end of learned counsel for the petitioners that it is a fit case wherein order of cognizance dated 16.09.2017 passed in connection with Ashok Papper Mill PS Case No. 24/2017, GR No. 46/2017 pending before Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Darbhanga should be set aside.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1833 of 2019(2) dt.01-02-2019 3/3
with the opinion and to substantiate the same, has elaborated that from the further statement of the informant along with statement of witnesses, Laxman Paswan and Dularchand Paswan, he found prima facie material whereupon, summoned the accused. Wrong mentioning of Section at the present juncture will not cause hard-ship nor will eclipse the proceeding as up to judgment in terms of Section 216 CrPC, the Court is fully competent enough to amend the charge in accordance with materials available on the record. More particularly, so far present scenario is concerned, Section 3, (2)(ii) and 3(iv) is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
at the stage of framing of charge. Consequent thereupon, the order impugned did not attract interference, whereupon, the instant petition is rejected.
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)
perwez
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Magistrate was justified in summoning the accused after disagreeing with the police's final report and finding prima facie material.
Whether the applicant's petition seeking setting aside of the order of cognizance attracted judicial interference.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
MD. JUBAIDAR @ MD.JUBAIR @ JUBAIR @ JUBAIYAR and others
State Of Bihar
Aditya Kumar Trivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
