Dismissed

MD Javed Alias MD Jawed v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC23 Jul 2019A.B.A./6870/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court sanctioned the petitioner that his anticipatory bail application is not maintainable after the Supreme Court restored a lower court order issuing summons under Section 82 Cr.P.C. citing Lavesh vs State regarding continuation of summons.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's anticipatory bail application is dismissed as not maintainable given the restoration of summons under Section 82 Cr.P.C.

MD Javed Alias MD Jawed Vs the State of Jharkhand — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 6870 of 2018

¶2

Md. Javed @ Md. Jawed ….. Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Rizwana Trannum @ Tarannum @ Nikki ….. Opp. Party

¶5

----CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh, Advocate For the State : A.P.P For the O.P.No.2 : Mr.Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate Reserved on 18.07.2019 Delivered on : 23/07/2019

¶6

-----

¶7

Anant Bijay Singh,J. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with C.P. Case No. 44/2018 , the case registered under Sections406/498A of the Indian Penal Code and 3/ 4 D.P. Act.

¶8

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that a complaint being C.P.Case no.44/2018 was filed by Razwana Trannum @ Nikki ( O.P.No.2) alleging therein that she came in contact with the petitioner in 2008 and the petitioner introduced himself as transport businessman and his income is in higher side. The relationship continued till 2009 when petitioner requested the O.P.No.2 for giving some money for investment in the business. The O.P.No.2 any how manage the amount and gave Rs. 70,000/- to the petitioner on the promise that he will return the amount at an early stage.

¶9

3. Meanwhile, Complainant/O.P.No.2 got job in the year 2010 in S.B.I. Life Insurance Co. Ltd and in the year 2012 she got job in Max Life Insurance. In 2013, petitioner compelled to agree the parent for marriage with O.P.No.2 and on 29.04.2016 marriage of the petitioner with O.P.No.2 was performed and O.P.No.2 went to her Sasural, but there also she was being tortured by her in-laws also for demand of dowry. On basis of the aforesaid allegation, the present complaint case was filed.

¶10

4. It is relevant to mention here that earlier petitioner has preferred A.B.A.No.5647 of 2018 before this Court on 13.08.2018 and the matter was before this Bench on 28.09.2018 and the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that process under section 82 Cr. P.C. has been issued after filing of this anticipatory bail application.

¶11

5 . Hence, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lavesh Vrs. State ( N.C.T of Delhi) reported in (2012)8 SCC 730 ,the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as not maintainable.

¶12

6. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed Cr. M.P.No.3242/2018 before this Court for quashing of the order dated 07.09.2018 passed by the learned

¶13

Magistrate by which process under section 82 Cr. P.C was issued against the petitioner. The aforesaid order of learned Magistrate was quashed by this Court on 04.10.2018.

¶14

7. Thereafter, A.B.A.No. 6870 of 2018 was filed on 05.10.2018 and on 26.10.2018 it was listed before this Bench. 8. Notice was issued to O.P.No.2 and the case was directed to be listed on 22.02.2019 for physical appearance of both the parties so that possibility of reconciliation between them may be explored.

¶15

9. In course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner had produced the order dated 04.10.2018 passed by this court in Cr.M.P. No.3242/2018, whereby the order for issuance of process Under section 82 Cr. P.C. was quashed and the order dated 02.04.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 587 of 2019, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.172 of 2019, which reveals that O.P.No.2 had moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Criminal Appeal No. 587 of 2019, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.172 of 2019 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.04.2019 has set aside the order dated 04.10.2018 passed by this Court in Cr. M.P. No.3242/2018. The order reads as under :

¶16

“Leave granted.

¶17

Heard learned counsel.

¶18

By order dated 04.10.2019 passed in Crl. M.P. No.3242/2018, the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi allowed the application preferred by respondent no.2 herein for quashing of order dated 07.09.2018 passed against said respondent no.2 in connection with C.P. Case no.44 o 2018 by Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

¶19

The order dated 07.09.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate indicates that it was the absence on part of the respondent no.2 which was the basis for passing said order. This order was, however,set aside by the High Court on the ground that order did not reveal any appropriate reasons and such order deserved to be quashed.

¶20

We have gone through the record and heard learned counsel. In our view, the assessment made by the High Court was completely correct.

¶21

The order did reveal the reason, namely, the absence on part of respondent no.2- accused and a logical consequence which had to follow in the matter. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate. We therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate on 07.09.2018.

¶22

The logical consequence of restoration of that order will therefore must follow.

¶23

The record shows that in ABA no.6870/2018 the High Court had passed an order on 26.10.2018 directing both the parties to remain personally present on 22.02.2019 so that in their presence possibility of reconciliation through the process of mediation could be explored.

¶24

We have not in any way modified that direction.

¶25

With the aforesaid observation, this appeal stands disposed of.”

¶26

10. In terms of direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 02.04.2019, both the parties were again directed to appear before this Court and pursuant thereto both the parties appeared on 28.06.2019 before this Court and the possibility of reconciliation between them was explored and the matter was again directed to be listed on 10.07.2019 and thereafter it has been listed today i.e on 18.07.2019 to be heard on merit.

¶27

11. When the case was called out, learned counsel for O.P.No.2 submitted that A.B.A.No.5647 of 2018 earlier filed by the petitioner was dismissed as not maintainable, in view of the fact that process under section 82 Cr. P.C. was issued after filing of the anticipatory bail application and thereafter vide order dated 04.10.2018 passed in Cr. M.P.No.3242/2018, the order issuing process U/s 82 Cr. P.C. passed by the Judicial Magistrate was set aside.

¶28

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded the point that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while allowing Cr. Appeal No.587 of 2019 has set aside the order passed by this Court and has restored the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate on 07.09.2018 by which process under section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against this petitioner.

¶29

13. In this view of the matter that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has restored the order dated 07.09.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad in C.P. case no. 44 of 2018, whereby process under section 82 Cr. P.C. was issued against the petitioner, the order dated 07.09.2018 passed by the learned Magistrate issuing process under section 82 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner is revived and therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lavesh Vrs. State ( N.C.T of Delhi) (Supra), the present anticipatory bail application is not maintainable.

¶30

Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶31

(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)

¶32

Raman /

MD Javed Alias MD Jawed v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Javed Alias MD Jawed v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Upendra Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand through C B I

Jailum Khatoon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rabbani Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deonish Kiro Vs the State of Jharkhand through Vigilance

Hiru Mahato Alias Hiralal Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Naresh Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand