Yogendra SharmA. Vs. State of Bihar.

[p. sathasivam ; h.l. gokhale, j.j.] - the indian penal code, 1860 section 302 - punishment for murder -- sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav was instituted. sunil yadav was instituted. on 29.04.1997, about 5:30 a.m., at nawada sadar hospital, si anil kumar gupta recorded the statement of sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav and on the basis of his statement fir no 12/97 was registered with govindpur p.s under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 447 ipc against upendra yadav, rambalak yadav, basudev yadav, anil yadav, manager yadav, ganuari yadav, damodar yadav, suresh yadav, umesh yadav, muni yadav and naresh yadav. the charge-sheet bearing no. 12/97 was submitted in fir no. 11/97 p.s. govindpur, on 30.06.1997 against brahamdeo yadav, sunil yadav, darogi mahto, maho yadav, paro mahto, kuldeep yadav, sudhir yadav, bale yadav, shivan yadav and suraj yadav and sunil yadav who was later instituted. the charge sheet bearing no. 36/97 was also submitted in fir no. 12/97 p.s. govindpur, on 17.12.1997 against upendra yadav, rambalak yadav, basudev yadav, anil yadav, manager yadav, ganuari yadav, damodar yadav, umesh yadav, muni yadav and naresh yadav except suresh yadav s/o kesho yadav as he had died. informant-naresh yadav (pw-9) informant-sunil yadav (a9 in fir 11/97) brahmdeo yadav, darogi mahto, sunil s/o bale yadav, maho yadav, kuldeep yadav, bale yadav, suraj yadav, shiv nandan yadav, sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav, sudhir yadav and paro mahto, total 11 persons forming a group came there and surrounded them. brahmdeo yadav, sunil yadav, darogi mahto and maho yadav were armed with rifle. bale yadav, kuldeep yadav, shiv nandan yadav and suraj yadav were armed with gandassa. kuldeep yadav gave gandassa blow to munshi yadav......482 of the code of criminal procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 16.6.2001 passed by shri s.c. srivastava, judicial magistrate, ist class, jehanabad in trial no.1099 of 2001 arising out of ghosi p.s. case no.216 of 2000. by the said order, the learned magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under sections 341, 448, 323, 337, 318, 307, 504/34 of the indian penal code and 27 of the arms act.4. i have perused the materials available on record. initially, f.i.r. was registered against seven accused persons including the petitioner. after registering the f.i.r. vide ghosi p.s. case no.216 of 200, on 8.8.2000, the police investigated the same. during investigation, sufficient materials were found showing involvement of petitioner and one sunita devi. however, the case in respect of other accused persons was found un-true and thereafter, charge sheet no.10 of 2001 dated 28.2.2001 was submitted. on receipt of the charge sheet along with case diary, the learned magistrate examined the same. the learned magistrate had examined several paragraphs of the case diary and differing with the police report has taken cognizance of offence against all the accused persons including this petitioner.5. aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioner approached this court. after going through the order impugned and materials available on record, the court finds no defect in the same. in the opinion of the court, it is not a fit case for exercising inherent power in favour of the petitioner that too, against the order of cognizance.6. accordingly, the petition stands rejected.7. in view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay dated 20.5.2002 stands automatically vacated.8. let a copy of this order as well as original case diary, which was earlier received in this case, be sent to the court below forthwith.