Allowed

Dhanajay Banerjee And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC11 Sept 2014Cr.M.P./5146/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand, in a criminal miscellaneous petition, set aside a non-speaking order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate that took cognizance with marriage for dowry death offense against the petitioners. The Court directed fresh proceedings with proper discussion of materials.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 27.11.2001 is set aside and the case against the petitioners is remanded for fresh orders after discussing materials.

Dhanajay Banerjee And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 5146 of 2001

¶3

¶4

Dhananjay Banerjee

¶5

Abhiram Banerjee

¶6

Leela Banerjee

¶7

Chandana Banerjee

¶8

Subhasis Banerjee .… Petitioners

¶9

-Versus-

¶10

The State of Jharkhand

¶11

Shri Mihir Kumar Changdar ..... Opposite Parties

¶12

------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA

¶13

For the Petitioners : : M/s. Ananda Sen For the State : : M/s. A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : : M/s. A.K.Sahani

¶14

11/ 11.09.2014. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the informant.

¶15

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 27.11.2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, in G.R. No. 337 of 2001, whereby cognizance against these petitioners also, have been taken for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

The petitioners have been made accused in Ichagarh P.S. Case No. 20 of 2001, corresponding to G.R. No. 337 of 2001, for the offence under Section 304-B / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which was instituted on the basis of the written information given by the informant, who is the father of the deceased. In the F.I.R. It is stated that the daughter of the informant was married to the co-accused Aashish Banerjee on 11.12.2000 and there is allegation against the accused persons to have subjected his daughter to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry, and it is alleged that on 12.5.2001 the informant was informed about the occurrence, whereupon he along with his family members went to the In-laws' house of the deceased and found the dead body covered with a bed sheet. The informant and his family members were not even allowed to see the dead body. The FIR was lodged on the basis of the written information given by the informant, and investigation was taken up.

¶17

It appears from the impugned order dated 27.11.2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, that after investigation the police submitted the charge-sheet only against the husband of the deceased and that too, for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as these petitioners are concerned, final form was submitted in their favour showing false accusation against them. The Court below on the basis of the materials in the case diary has taken cognizance against all the accused persons for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners, who are the In-laws of the deceased, have challenged the impugned order taking cognizance against them.

¶18

-2-

¶19

By order dated 18.3.2002, the further proceedings against the petitioners in the Court below were stayed by this Court.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, in as much as, even though after investigation the final form has been submitted in favour of the petitioners, but no material whatsoever have been discussed by the Court below for differing from the findings of the investigation and taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is a non-speaking order and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the informant, though have opposed the prayer, but could not point out anything from the impugned order to show that there was any discussion of any material found against the petitioners by the Court below.

¶22

After having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the impugned order, I find that though the impugned order states that after investigation the police had submitted the final form in favour of the petitioners stating it to be false accusation against them, but the Court below has stated that the unnatural death of the deceased had taken place within seven years of the marriage, and there is specific allegation in the F.I.R., against all the accused persons and on the basis of the materials available in the case diary, prima-facie offence is made out against these petitioners also under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. However, the Court below has not discussed any material from the case diary to show as to what were the materials found against the petitioners during investigation, making out the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

In my considered view the impugned order passed by the Court below, so far as these petitioners are concerned, is absolutely a non-speaking order and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.11.2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, in Ichagarh P.S. Case No. 20 of 2001 corresponding to G.R. No. 337 of 2001, so far as these petitioners are concerned, is hereby, set aside and the Court below is directed to pass the order afresh in accordance with law and discussing the materials against the petitioners found during investigation in the case.

¶24

This application is accordingly, allowed with the direction as above.

¶25

(H.C.Mishra, J.)

¶26

D.S.

Dhanajay Banerjee And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanajay Banerjee And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikash Singh Alias Vikash Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Deglal Mahto Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Kusum Toppo and Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Santosh Saw and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Vikash Kumar Singh Alias Bikash Alias Bikku Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Farooque Mirza Alias Farooque and Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.