This criminal revision application challenged an order directing cognaissance under Section 376 IPC instead of Section 354 IPC. The High Court held that the victim \'s statement sufficed for cognizance and that the lower court\'s order was legal, thus dismissing the petition.
Cr. M.P. No. 1026 of 2014 stood dismissed.
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 CORT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 1026 of 2014
Kunjlal Mirdha ... …....... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand &Anr …....... Opposite Parties
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. BHATT
For the Petitioner :- Mr. R.R.Singh Advocate
For the State :- A.P.P.
2/ 2.12.2014 The present application is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the order dated 7.3.2014 passed in Cr. Revision No. 103 of 2013 by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar whereby revision application filed by the informant has been allowed and the learned court below has been directed to take cognizance of the offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code instead of under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code besides the offence under sections 448 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring annexure-3 submitted that even the medical evidence is not in support of the prosecution case and accordingly, final form was submitted in favour of the petitioner. However, the learned Revisional Court without proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case directed the court below to take cognizance under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code instead of under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.
The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.P.P appearing for the State supported order dated 7.3.2014 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar and submitted that statement of victim is sufficient for taking cognizance and therefore,the learned court below has rightly and properly passed an order dated 7th March,2014 whereby the order passed by the learned Magistrate
taking cognizance under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code has been set aside.
Having regard to the above submissions and on perusal of the order passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar dated 7th March, 2014 it appears that the learned court below, after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances involved in the case as also considering the proposition of law, passed an order and thereby directed the learned court below to take cognizance of the offence punishable under sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of statement of the victim girl which was sufficient for taking cognizance and therefore, intervention of this court is not needed with respect to the order dated 7.3.2014 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P stands dismissed.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the points, which have been raised before this court, and other points, which are available to him,before court below in an application for discharge that may be filed by the petitioner before the learned court below.
(P.P. BHATT, J.)
SD
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the present application should be entertained for quashing the order directing cognizance under Section 376 IPC.
Whether the statement of the victim girl is sufficient for taking cognizance under Section 376 IPC.
Whether intervention of the High Court is necessary regarding the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Deoghar.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Kunjlal Mirdha
The State of Jharkhand
P.P. BHATT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
