Dismissed

Bina Devi Alias Vina Devi And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC8 May 2019Cr.M.P./1961/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The Court held that sufficient prima facie material existed on record for framing charges and found no illegality or perversity in the lower courts' rejection of the discharge application.

What did the court decide?

Criminal miscellaneous petition and IA no.3005 of 2019 dismissed.

Bina Devi Alias Vina Devi And Ors. Vs The State… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M.P. no. 1961 of 2017

¶3

Bina Devi @ Vina Devi

¶4

Hemant Kumar Mahto

¶5

Sachin Kumar ... Petitioners Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Punam Kumari ... Opp. Parties ---------

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA

¶9

---------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For the State : APP For the O.P. no.2 : Mr. Abdul Kalam Rashidi, Advocate -----------

¶10

04/Dated:08.05.2019

¶11

This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioners, vide order dated 14.05.2015 in C/1 Case no.3979 of 2014, whereby the discharge petition was dismissed by the court below and the order dated 22.06.2017, passed in Criminal Revision no.87 of 2017 whereby, the Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, has rejected the application for discharge.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that both the petitioners and O.P. no.2 are agnates and there are a series of litigations going on between them. That O.P.no.2 has instituted the case with a malicious intention to wreak vengeance.

¶13

It is submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others; (2015) 6 SCC 287, has observed that if the complainant does not file a certificate or affidavit stating that the complaint was being filed because the police did not register the case, then the complaint should be rejected at the very threshold as per para-27 of the said judgment.

¶14

Learned counsel on behalf of O.P. no.2 has supported the impugned order and submitted that the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and she has supported the allegation made in the complaint. The inquiry witnesses have also been examined who have supported the case of the complainant. That on the basis of the materials on record cognizance was taken and no error has been committed by the courts below in rejecting the petition for discharge.

¶15

-2-

¶16

Heard. Perused the materials on record. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to look into the materials available on record and it has to be satisfied that there was sufficient materials for a prima-facie case to be made out against the accused for putting him on trial. The court is not required to conduct a roving enquiry or mini trial to find out whether the materials are sufficient for recording of conviction. The well settled principle is that at the stage of framing of charge the defence evidence cannot be looked into.

¶17

The decision relied on by the learned counsel is not helpful in the facts of the present case. The courts below have considered the statement of the complainant and the three enquiry witnesses who have supported that they had seen three persons assaulting the complainant. The complainant had immediately disclosed the names of the accused to the witnesses and told them that they were the relatives of the in-laws of the complainant.

¶18

The court below has discussed the evidence and arrived at the satisfaction that there was sufficient material on record for framing the charge against the petitioners. It is held that no illegality or perversity has been committed by the court below in rejecting the application of discharge.

¶19

In the result the present criminal miscellaneous petition as well as I.A.no.3005 of 2019 stand dismissed.

¶20

(Amitav K. Gupta, J.)

¶21

Tarun/-

Bina Devi Alias Vina Devi And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bina Devi Alias Vina Devi And Ors. v. The 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kausar Jahan Vs State of Jharkhand

Manoj Singh Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Satyendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Navin Kumar Alias Navin Kumar Agrawal Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Atul Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Umesh Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand