Dismissed

Dhirendra Kumar Alias Dhirendra Singh v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Jharkhand HC12 Apr 2022Cr.Rev./378/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, after a prior order quashed an impugned order rejecting a complaint due to missing documents, disposed of the pending revision application. The Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months of receiving the specific medical and suicide documents.

What did the court decide?

Revision application disposed of; trial court directed to conclude trial within six months from receipt of order; Officer-in-Charge impleaded.

Dhirendra Kumar Alias Dhirendra… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 378 of 2014

¶4

¶5

Dhirendra Kumar @ Dhirendra Singh

¶6

….. …. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand

¶9

Mrs. Poonam Singh

¶10

Mr. Sudhir Singh

¶11

Smt. Indra Devi

¶12

Mr. Suraj Singh

¶13

Mr. Vikas Kumar Singh

¶14

Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh

¶15

Shri Bhagwan Prasad Jha ….. ….Opposite Parties

¶16

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶17

¶18

For the Petitioner :Mr. Arvind Kr. Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party-State :Ms. Shweta Singh, APP For the Res. No.8 : Ms. J. Mazumdar, Adv.

¶19

28/12.04.2022 By order dated 15.1.2021, it clearly transpires that the revision application was allowed in favour of the petitioner and the impugned order dated 15.01.2014, passed in C.P.No.687 of 2013 was quashed. It was further observed that the Officer-in-charge of the concerned police station was directed to produce the post-mortem report as well as the so-called suicide note before the learned court below as and when directed by the court concerned.

¶20

For brevity paragraph Nos 17-21 is quoted herein

¶21

below:-

¶22

17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned order dated 15.01.2014 rejecting

¶23

¶24

the complaint petition on the ground that the post mortem report as well as the suicide note has not been produced by the petitioner, is hereby set-aside and the learned court below is directed to proceed further in accordance with law.

¶25

18. The officer in-charge of the concerned police station shall produce the post mortem report as well as the socalled suicide note before the learned court below as and when directed by the court concerned.

¶26

19. This Court finds that by virtue of the affidavit dated 05.01.2021, it has come to light that the investigating officer of the case Shri Bhagwan Prasad Jha retained the original suicide note with him and continued to retain the same till 09.11.2020. This Court has already found that neither the suicide note nor the post mortem report formed a part of the case-diary and said Shri Bhagwan Prasad Jha had submitted final form stating that there is no evidence against the accused and did not file the post mortem report as well as the suicide note before the learned court below for its perusal and consideration. It is not in dispute that the court has to apply its independent mind and the filing of final form by itself is not binding on the court and there is no doubt that the post mortem report and the suicide note were material documents which ought to have accompanied the case-diary.

¶27

20. In such circumstances, this Court directs that, “Shri Bhagwan Prasad Jha, resident of Simra, P.O. Lakarmak, P.S.-Hasdiha, DistrictDumka, now posted as Incharge Dy. S.P. (Special Branch), at Jamtada (Jharkhand) having mobile no. 7667597005” be impleaded as opposite party no. 8 in the instant case. Office is directed to carry out the necessary corrections in the cause title in red ink.

¶28

21. Office is also directed to issue notice to the newly added opposite party. The notice should be served through the Superintendent of Police of Jamtada and the learned counsel for the opposite party- State is directed to file a supplementary counter-affidavit in support of the service of notice. The newly added opposite party is directed to explain before this Court about the aforesaid conduct directly interfering with the administration of justice.

¶29

¶30

2. Thereafter, Status Report was also called for from the concerned Court as to whether the Officer-inCharge, namely, Bhagwan Prasad Jha has been examined and whether he has produced the post-mortem report before the trial court.

¶31

3. Pursuant to that Status Report has been received from the concerned Court indicating therein which is as under :-

¶32

1. On 14.03.2013 protest cum complaint petition No.387 of 2013 has been filed (arising out of Jharia P.S. 338/12)

¶33

2. On 05.01.2014 said protest cum compliant petition was dismissed.

¶34

3. On 22.08.2020 said case record was call for by the Hon’ble High Court, Jharkhand in criminal revision no.378/14.

¶35

4. On 11.02.2021 memo No.1304 dated 08.02.2021 received by Hon’ble High Court and it was ordered that the impugned order dated 15.01.2014 rejecting the said complain petition on ground that the postmortem report as well as the suicide note has not been produced by the petitioner is hereby set aside and it was directed to court to proceed further in accordance with law.

¶36

5. On 11.02.2022 it was ordered to issue the notice to concerned I.O. for producing the postmortem report as well as the suicide note and also telephonic information regarding the same has been given by the court office to concerned I.O.

¶37

6. On 29.03.2022 notice was issue to I.O.

¶38

7. Next date is fixed on 11.04.2022 for production of postmortem report as well as the suicide note and for passing fresh order.

¶39

4. From record it further transpires that newly added O.P.No.8 had also filed an affidavit and the trial

¶40

¶41

court has issued notice and the date has been fixed for production of post-mortem report as well as suicide note. This clearly goes to show that the spirit of the order dated 15.1.2021 passed by this Court while allowing the instant revision application has been fulfilled.

¶42

5. Thus, with consent of the parties, now the instant application, is hereby disposed of finally with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of Six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶43

Fahim /-

¶44

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

Dhirendra Kumar Alias Dhirendra Singh v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhirendra Kumar Alias Dhirendra Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jamuna Sao Vs State of Jharkhand

Ranthu Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Ram Ratan Gope Vs State of Jharkhand

Suresh Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sohil Yadav And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Narayan Mahato And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand