Remanded

Manju Dei and Anr. v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Jharkhand HC7 Feb 2020Cr.Rev./358/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand in a criminal revision held that the Sub-Divisional Officer dropping proceedings under Section 147 Cr.P.C. was unsustainable due to factual errors and lack of report. The matter was remanded to the S.D.O. to decide afresh after ascertaining the Circle Officer's report and giving parties an opportunity.

What did the court decide?

The matter remitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer of Ranchi to decide it after ascertaining the report from the Circle Officer and giving opportunity to parties, within six months.

Manju Dei and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors. — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No.358 of 2014

¶4

Manju Devi

¶5

Smt. Asha Devi ..… Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi

¶9

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranchi

¶10

The Circle Officer, Ranchi

¶11

The Officer-in-Charage, Doranda Police Station

¶12

Dinesh Prasad ….. Opposite Parties -----

¶13

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶14

-----

¶15

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate For the State : A.P.P For the O.P.No.6 : Mrs. Ashmita Srivastava, Advocate

¶16

-----

¶17

20/Dated:- 07/02/2020

¶18

1. The instant application is directed against the order dated 13.01.2014, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ranchi, in Misc. Case No. M-274/2013, whereby the application filed by the petitioner was rejected and the proceeding under Section 147 Cr.P.C was dropped.

¶19

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner No.1 and O.P.No.6 are full brothers and there is a dispute with regard to blocking of passage by the O.P.No.6. He Further contended that the dispute relates to Khata No.66, Plot No.62, 63B measuring an area 4 Katha situated at Manitola, Doranda, Ranchi. He further submits that due to the dispute with regard to the passage, the petitioner No.1 made an

¶20

¶21

application on 30.04.2012 before the Officer-in-Charge, Doranda Police Station with regard to the blockage of passage by the O.P.No.6. Pursuant to the said application, proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. had been initiated vide Misc. Case No.M-1152/2012, which was dropped by order dated 27.09.2012. The said proceeding was dropped for the reason that the dispute was not with respect to any land, but it was related to 8 feet road. He Further submits that the dispute exists between the parties, which is evident from the report dated 06.03.2013, submitted by the Officer-in-Charge, Doranda Police Station (O.P.No.5) to the SubDivisional Officer, Ranchi (O.P.No.3) in which the O.P.No.5 has requested for initiating a proceeding under Section 147 Cr.P.C. Pursuant to the said letter, proceeding under Section 147 Cr.P.C. was initiated wherein a report was called for from the Circle Officer (City Circle) Ranchi clarifying the dispute between the parties. However, in absence of the report of the Circle Officer, Ranchi the instant proceeding was dropped holding that the report which was asked by the letter dated 09.04.2013, has not been provided by the Circle Officer and since the matter is dragging since long as such, the proceeding was dropped.

¶22

3. Per-contra, Mrs. Ashmita Srivastava learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.6 supports the impugned order and submits that there is no dispute, however with respect to 8 feet road, there is still some misunderstanding. She fairly admits that the O.P.No.3, should have waited for the report of Circle Officer.

¶23

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the O.P.No.6.

¶24

5. After going through the impugned order, it appears that Annexure3, which is a letter dated 06.03.2013 address to S.D.O., Sadar Ranchi, in

¶25

¶26

which it was specifically mentioned that the proceeding under Section 147 Cr.P.C should be initiated and pursuant to that the same was initiated. Further, Annexure-4 clearly transpires that report was called for from the Circle Officer, City Circle Ranchi, with respect to the dispute in question, however the O.P.No.3 rejected the proceeding only for the reason that the matter is pending since long and the Circle Officer had not submitted the required report, which was asked. The said impugned order also transpires that the learned S.D.O., has observed that from the report of Police there is no disturbance with respect to right to use, but admittedly the dispute is still in existence.

¶27

6. In my considered opinion, the learned S.D.O (O.P.No.3) should have reminded the Circle Officer, Ranchi to send the report involved in the said case and then should have passed a reasoned order. The finding of the S.D.O that the matter is pending since long and in the absence of report of Circle Officer, the matter is lingering, as such, the proceeding should have been closed is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The S.D.O has also committed factual error by holding that from the report of Officer-in-Charge it appears that since right to use has not been disturbed as such proceeding under Section 147 Cr.P.C should be dropped. As a matter of fact, Annexure-2, which is report of Officer-inCharge, clearly transpires that Officer-in-Charge had requested the S.D.O. to start the proceeding under Section 147 Cr.P.C., further requested the S.D.O to take help of Halka Kramchari for the purpose of instruction for the exiting problem.

¶28

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussion and the submissions of the parties, let this matter be remitted back to the S.D.O (O.P.No.3) to decide the matter after giving opportunity to both the parties and after ascertaining the report from the Circle Officer and to pass a fresh order.

¶29

¶30

8. It is made clear that entire exercise shall be completed within the

¶31

period of Six months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶32

9. As a result this criminal revision stands disposed of.

¶33

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶34

fahhim/

Manju Dei and Anr. v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju Dei and Anr. v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

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

Bir Bahadur Choudhary Vs State of Jharkhand

Haradhan Vishwakarma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Guljar Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Narendra Kumar Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajay Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Niranjan Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand