Dismissed

Mobarak Ali Alias Tilla Alias Mobarak Hussain and Anr. v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Jan 2019Cr.M.P./28/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand considered a petition to quash criminal proceedings under IPC Sections 366(A), 376, and 504. The court held that the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement was not substantive evidence and declined to quash the proceedings after a full investigation had generated a charge sheet.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceeding is dismissed; the interim stay vide order dated 23.06.2015 is vacated.

Mobarak Ali Alias Tilla Alias Mobarak Hussain and Anr. Vs… — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 28 of 2015

¶3

…....

¶4

Mobarak Ali @ Tilla @ Mobarak Hussain @ Mubarak, son of Masiuddin

¶5

Chhotu Ansari @ Mr. Ashim, son of Mobarak Ali @ Tilla Both are residents of Village- Dumarbera (Uper Mohalla), P.O. -

¶6

Sarubera, P.S.- Mandu (Kuju), District- Ramgarh (Jharkhand)

¶7

…… Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party

¶10

…..

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

¶12

For the Petitioners : Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate For the State : Mr. Azeemuddin, A.P.P. …….

¶13

05/17.01.2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for

¶14

the State.

¶15

The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 10.04.2013 passed in G.R. No. 300 of 2012, arising out of Mandu P.S. Case No.28 of 2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, who has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 366(A), 376 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Chhotu Ansari @ Mr. Ashim and under Sections 366(A)/504 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Mobarak Ali @ Tilla @ Mobarak Hussain @ Mubarak.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that during investigation the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated her age about 18 years and the court has also assessed the age of victim about 19 years. She has further stated that she has solemnized her marriage with Chhotu Ansari @ Mr. Ashim voluntarily and nobody has abducted or kidnapped her for the purpose of marriage and both have solemnized marriage at Mumbai. Her father has filed a false case. Learned counsel for the petitioners has thus submitted that entire criminal proceeding may be quashed.

¶17

Learned counsel for the State has submitted that case was investigated by the police and after completion of the investigation, police has submitted charge sheet vide no. 29 of 2013 dated 28.02.2013 under Sections 366A/376/504 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and the

¶18

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh has taken cognizance on the basis of materials collected during investigation by the police. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence, rather the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has to be proved in the Court. The statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is a direction for the proper investigation but that cannot be construed to be an unimpeachable document for quashing the criminal proceeding. The same has to be proved in the court to consider it to be an evidence. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that several witnesses, whose statements have been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., during investigation have resiled from the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., during trial in the court, as such relying upon such material, the criminal proceeding may not be quashed.

¶19

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State and perused the materials available on record, this Court has taken judicial notice of the fact that police after full-fledged investigation has submitted chargesheet against the petitioners. It appears from the impugned order that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh has perused the materials brought in the case diary and took cognizance of the offence under Sections 366(A)/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. This court considered the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which is not a substantive piece of evidence or unimpeachable document adduced in the court as the same requires full fledged trial and legal proof to become a piece of evidence before the trial court.

¶20

Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not inclined to quash the criminal proceeding. Accordingly, the present quashing application is hereby dismissed. The interim stay granted earlier vide order dated 23.06.2015 is vacated, however, the learned court below will not be prejudiced by this order during trial.

¶21

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶22

R.S.-

Mobarak Ali Alias Tilla Alias Mobarak Hussain and Anr. v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mobarak Ali Alias Tilla Alias Mobarak Hussain and Anr. 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

Surendra Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Mantu Razak Alias Mantu Rajak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rinku Shah Alias Shahzada Shah Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Dangi Alias Manoj Kumar Dangi Alias Manoj Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Debashish Dandapat Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Dilip Dandapat Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.