Dismissed

Prince Singh Alias Rahul Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Dec 2019Cr.M.P./129/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application seeking to quash an FIR registered for murder and arms offences, the Court held that the FIR recorded prima facie evidence against the petitioners. Finding the offence required investigation and pointing out presence at the scene, the Court dismissed the application as having no merit.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash the FIR was dismissed; no interference with the investigation order was granted.

Prince Singh Alias Rahul Kumar Singh Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M.P. No. 129 of 2019

¶3

Prince Singh @ Rahul Kumar Singh

¶4

Sunny Singh @ Roshan..…....... Petitioner (s) Versus State of Jharkhand & Anr………… Opp. Party(s)

¶5

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen

¶6

…… For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Shankar, Advocate For the State : A.P.P.

¶7

7/17.12.2019 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶8

In this application, the petitioners pray for quashing the FIR, which has been registered as Daltonganj Town/ Palamau Town P.S. Case No. 306 of 2018, under Sections 302, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the restatement the informant has not stated anything against these two petitioners.

¶10

Learned A.P.P. submits that these two petitioners are absconding and have not yet been arrested and, therefore, the final report has not been submitted.

¶11

After hearing the parties, I find that the petitioners, in this application, have prayed for quashing the FIR. Quashing of the FIR means quashing of the entire investigations. In a case where facts are to be unearthed by investigation, the FIR cannot be quashed. I find that there is allegation that two other accused persons called the deceased and took him out of the house and, thereafter, on hearing the sound of gunshot, the informant and others came out of the house and went to the place of occurrence where they saw that these two petitioners and others were fleeing from the place of occurrence with firearms in their hands. It was found that the deceased was done to death. Thus, this FIR was lodged further stating that five years prior to the date of occurrence, Sunny Singh @ Roshan, who is petitioner no. 2 in this application, was shot at and the deceased was one of the accused, thus by way of revenge, this incident has

¶12

-2-

¶13

been given effect to by these petitioners and others.

¶14

From the FIR, I find that a cognizable offence is made out. Further, presence of these petitioners at the place of occurrence, get confirmed from the FIR itself.

¶15

In view of the aforesaid fact and since the offence is made out, which needs investigation, I am not inclined to interfere with the FIR. Accordingly, having found no merit, this application stands dismissed.

¶16

( Ananda Sen, J )

¶17

Mukund/-cp.3

Prince Singh Alias Rahul Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prince Singh Alias Rahul Kumar Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldeep Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sher Bahadur Singh Alias Sher Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Saukat Ali Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dr Bishwajith Bandopadyay And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sitaram Murmu Alias Sitaram Manjhi Hadam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Satish Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand