Quashed

Deoki Devi v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Jharkhand HC18 Apr 2022Cr.M.P./367/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge High Court of Jharkhand quashed criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioner arising from a domestic animal dispute. The court held that since a compromise was reached with the heirs of the deceased informant, continuing the proceedings was a futile exercise.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceeding and the order dated 07.12.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi are quashed.

Deoki Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr.M.P. No. 367 of 2015

¶4

Deoki Devi, w/o Sri Ratho Sahu, resident of Village Sugnu, Upar Tola, PO Sugnu, P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi … Petitioner

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

1 State of Jharkhand

¶7

Ripendar Sahu, s/o late Nageshwar Sahu, resident of Village Sugnu, PO Sugnu, PS Sadar, District Ranchi

¶8

Sandeep Sahu, aged about 28 years, s/o Raju Sahu, resident of Hanuman Mandir, Dumaradaga, PO Sugnu, and PS Sadar, District Ranchi

¶9

Vikash Kumar, S/o Late Rajendra Kanshi @ Rajendra Sahu 5. Namita Devi, W/o Late Rajendra Kanshi @ Rajendra Sahu Both Resident of Satpara Sundil, P.O. Kamre, P.S. Ratu, DistrictRanchi … Opposite Parties

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶11

For the Petitioners : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate Mr. P.A.N. Roy, Advocate For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P. For Opposite Party No.4 & 5 : Ms. Kavita Kumari, Advocate

¶12

07/18.04.2022. Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. P.A.N. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned counsel for the State and Ms. Kavita Kumari, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 4 and 5.

¶13

This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 07.12.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with G.R.No.5636/2012 arising out of Sadar P.S.Case No.283/12 whereby the learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioner, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Ranchi.

¶14

The case was instituted pursuant to the statement of the informant alleging therein that on 10.10.12 at about 3 p.m Ox of Ratho Sahu was coming at home of the informant again and again. It is further alleged in

¶15

¶16

the FIR that even when the informant was dragging his Ox from his house but again Ox was coming in the house of the informant. It is further alleged in the FIR that the informant with an intention to drag the Ox he had caused injury on the Ox by stick (danda) which had caused injury near eyes of the Ox and the Ox sustained slight injury on his eyes. It is further alleged that the informant had given information about that injury to Ratho Sahu then it has been alleged that wife of Ratho Sahu started abusing him. It is alleged that on 11.10.12 at 11.30 a.m while the informant was taking out milk of the cow at the house of Mahabir Sahu then in the meantime wife of Ratho Sahu namely Deoki Devi came to the village Sugnu, Upar Tola and assaulted on his head from back by stick (danda) which had caused injury on the head of the informant and blood was oozing from his head and the informant fell down. It is also alleged that she was threatening to kill him and with the intervention of the villagers that dispute was solved by the villagers and the informant was taken to the police station and accordingly FIR was lodged and he requested to take legal action regarding this.

¶17

Pursuant to the objection raised by Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned counsel for the State, the order dated 03.03.2022 was passed and in view of that order, I.A. No.2618 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of wife and son of the deceased informant, namely, Namita Devi amd Vikash Kanshi respectively. 5. Learned counsel Ms. Kavita Kumari has appeared on behalf of wife and son of the deceased informant and she has filed Vakalatnama along with I.A.2618 of 2022, which is meant for compromise.

¶18

Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier one joint compromise petition being I.A. No.1362 of 2022 was filed on behalf of the petitioner and opposite party no.2 wherein it

¶19

¶20

has been disclosed that the compromise has been made between the parties. He further submits that in view of the objection raised by the learned counsel for the State, further joint compromise petition being I.A. No.2618 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner and wife and son of the deceased informant. He also submits that in that I.A., the prayer is also made for adding the wife and son of the deceased informant as opposite party nos. 4 and 5 in this petition.

¶21

In view of the above submissions and considering that the I.A. No.2618 of 2022 has been affidavited by Sudama Kumar Sahu, son of the petitioner and wife and son of the deceased informant namely Namita Devi and Vikash Kanshi respectively, the prayer with regard to adding the wife and son of the deceased informant as opposite party nos. 4 and 5 are is allowed.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner shall array the wife and son of the deceased informant as opposite party nos. 4 and 5 in this petition, in course of the day.

¶23

Mr. P.P.N.Roy, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the charge sheet has been submitted under sections 341, 323, 307 IPC. This petition has been filed and the compromise has been entered into between the petitioner and the wife, son and brother of the deceased informant. It has been submitted that the informant has died and that is why the wife, son and brother of the deceased informant has entered into the compromise. He further submits that the petitioner as well as the deceased informant were close relative. He also submits that the case is arising out of misunderstanding between the parties. He submits that there was some quarrel between the parties with regard to domestic animal which

¶24

¶25

was entering into the area of the petitioner and in that quarrel one blow by way of Lathi and there was no second blow on the head and the villagers came there and they pacified the quarrel between the parties. He submits that the injury was simple in nature and the injury report has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit. In the injury report it has been disclosed that no active bleeding was there and there is no external sign of injury. He submits that the compromise has been entered into and for that, I.As., being I.A. No.1362/2022 and I.A. No.2618 of 2022 have been filed.

¶26

Learned counsel Ms. Kavita Kumari submits that joint compromise petitions being I.A. Nos. 1362 of 2022 and 2618 of 2020, wherein, it has been stated that the compromise has been entered between the parties. She further submits that she has got no objection if this petition is allowed.

¶27

Mr. Sahay the learned counsel appearing for the State submits that there was blood on the head and in that view of the matter this is a case against the society. To buttress his argument, he relied in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 .

¶28

In view of the above facts and considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties as well as considering that the compromise has been reached between the parties and aforesaid two I.As. have been filed to that effect and also considering the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Anr. , reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , it would be futile exercise to allow the proceeding to go on in the court below. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order

¶29

¶30

dated 07.12.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with G.R.No.5636/2012 arising out of Sadar P.S.Case No.283/12,

¶31

pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Ranchi is, hereby, quashed.

¶32