Dismissed

Uma Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Jan 2020Cr.M.P./1645/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed two criminal miscellaneous petitions challenging an FIR registered for offences under Sections 498A, 306, and 34 IPC involving the accused and the deceased daughter. The court held that quashing an FIR equates to quashing investigation, which is not permissible when a cognizable offence is made out.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous petitions challenging the FIR were dismissed.

Uma Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M.P. No.1645 of 2019

¶3

----

¶4

Uma Devi

¶5

Suraj Kumar Mandal @ Suraj Mandal

¶6

… Petitioners

¶7

-versus-

¶8

The State of Jharkhand 2. Kishunlal Mandal … Opposite Parties

¶9

¶10

WITH

¶11

Cr. M.P. No.2245 of 2015

¶12

----

¶13

Ram Lal Mandal … Petitioner

¶14

-versus-

¶15

The State of Jharkhand

¶16

Kishun Lal Mandal … Opposite Parties ----

¶17

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN

¶18

----

¶19

For the Petitioners : Mr. Mukesh Bihari Lal, Advocate Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pramod Kumar Choudhary, APP For the O.P. No.2 : None ----

¶20

6/ 14.01.2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶21

In both these criminal miscellaneous petitions, petitioners have challenged the FIR, which was registered as Rail Koderma Police Station Case No.5 of 2012 for allegedly committing offence under Sections 498A, 306, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

Deceased happens to be the daughter of the informant. These petitioners are the in-laws. In Cr. M.P. No.2245 of 2015, the petitioner is the maternal father-in-law of the deceased and in Cr.M.P. No.1645 of 2019, petitioners are the mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased. There is an allegation of demand of dowry and torture as a result of which deceased allegedly committed suicide. On the aforesaid allegations, FIR was lodged.

¶23

Counsel for the petitioners submit that one of the co-accused, who had faced trial, has been acquitted. The said co-accused is the husband.

¶24

After going through the FIR, I find that the petitioners are named in the FIR and there are allegations in the FIR. Quashing of an FIR

¶25

-: 2 :-

¶26

means quashing of investigation itself. In this case cognizable offence is made out. Thus, there is no question of quashing the FIR. Thus, I am not inclined to entertain these two criminal miscellaneous petitions. Both these criminal miscellaneous petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.

¶27

( Ananda Sen, J.)

¶28

Kumar/Cp-03

Uma Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uma Devi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashim Imam And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Anil Kherwar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shiv Chandra Jaiswal Alias Sheo Chand Jaiswal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Wanshropan Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manish Kumar Keshri Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manish Ranjan Vs the State of Jharkhand