Allowed

Subodh Bara Babu Subodh Kumar Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Sept 2016Cr.M.P./1595/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this quashing application under Section 482 CrPC, the Supreme Bench held that a non-reasoned order was in taking cognizance considering police final report and evidentiary gaps. The matter has been remanded back to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sahibganj for effective disposal after considering overall on record. The order dated 18.10.2010 has been quashed and set aside.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of order dated 18.10.2010 and remand back to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj to pass a fresh order considering the entire material available on record.

Subodh Bara Babu Subodh Kumar Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1595 of 2010

¶2

Subodh Bara Babu @ Subodh Kumar Yadav.... Petitioner Versus

¶3

The State of Jharkhand 2. Yogmaya Sarkar … Opposite Parties

¶4

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Sohail Anwar, Sr Advocate & Mr. Afaque Ahmad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Asif Kha, APP For the O.P. No. 2 : None ---

¶6

Order No. 07 Dated 1st September, 2016

¶7

Heard Mr. M. S. Anwar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Asif Khan, learned counsel appearing for the State. No one has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2.

¶8

In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Borio (J) P.S. Case No. 187 of 2009 (G.R. No. 448 of 2009) including the order dated 18.10.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj, whereby and whereunder, cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶9

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to connect the petitioner with the incident as alleged by the opposite party No. 2 and in fact she is in the habit of filing false and frivolous cases. It has also been submitted that a high level enquiry was conducted on the complaint made by the wife of the petitioner. It has also been submitted that on the application made by the wife of the petitioner, it had finally come to light that there was no involvement of the petitioner in commission of the offence and finally final report has been submitted in favour of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the impugned order dated 18.10.2010 merely referred to statement of hearsay witnesses and without considering the entire material and evidence available on record, the said order taking cognizance dated 18.10.2010 has been passed. Therefore, the impugned order dated 18.10.2010, which does not contain any reason, is liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶10

Mr. Asif Khan, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has referred to Para-3 of the case diary which contains the statement of one Sandhya Devi, who has enumerated about the entire episode and Para-18 of the case diary containing the statement of one Vishnu Paswan, who had seen the victim going to the office. Learned counsel

¶11

¶12

therefore submits that sufficient circumstances are evident with respect to the commission of offence and therefore the present application is liable to be dismissed.

¶13

It appears that initially on the basis of the statement of Sandhya Devi and Vishnu Paswan, the case was found to be true, but subsequently on the application preferred by the wife of the petitioner and upon investigation into the same, the case was found to be false which led to submission of final form in favour of the petitioner. On the basis of a protest petition filed by the opposite party No. 2 and considering the material available on the case diary, cognizance was taken vide order dated 18.10.2010 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj by differing with the final report so submitted by the police. Admittedly, from the case diary there does not appear to be any direct evidence which could implicate the petitioner in commission of the offence. The witnesses at Para-3 of the case diary, namely, Sandhya Devi has merely enumerated what has allegedly been stated to her by opposite party No. 2. From the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that other witnesses were there who had not supported the allegation, but the impugned order dated 18.10.2010 does not contain any discussion with respect to the evidence which had been collected in favour of the petitioner. The impugned order therefore has not considered the entire materials available on record while taking cognizance for the offence punishable u/s 376 I.P.C.

¶14

In such circumstances, therefore the order dated 18.10.2010 being a non-reasoned order is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj who shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law after considering the materials available on record.

¶15

This application is allowed.

¶16

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶17

Subodh Bara Babu Subodh Kumar Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subodh Bara Babu Subodh Kumar Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

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

Rajesh Kumar Yadav Alias Manish Kumar Nadaf Vs the State of Jharkhand

Soni Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Jayanta Mukherjee Vs the State of Jharkhand

D.K.Pradhan Vs State of Jharkhand

Dhananjay Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Prashant Kumar Prashant Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Rajesh Kumar Yadav Alias Manish Kumar Nadaf Vs the State of Jharkhand

Soni Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Jayanta Mukherjee Vs the State of Jharkhand

D.K.Pradhan Vs State of Jharkhand

Dhananjay Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Prashant Kumar  Prashant Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Prashant Kumar Prashant Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand