Partly allowed

Rani Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Oct 2023Cr.M.P./1122/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court set aside the order taking cognizance against Petitioner no.1 (Rani Kumari) who was not named in the F.I.R. or witness statements, finding the decision mechanical and lacking judicial mind. Cognizance against other petitioners remained intact.

What did the court decide?

Order taking cognizance against Petitioner no.1 set aside; criminal miscellaneous petition disposed of regarding other petitioners.

Rani Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1122 of 2022

¶2

------

¶3

Rani Kumari

¶4

Uday Singh

¶5

Jaideep Kumar @ Raj Singh @ Raj Kumar Singh

¶6

.... .... …. Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand

¶9

Nilu Devi .... .... .... Opp. Parties

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate Mr. Kumar Nishant, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Special P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate

¶12

------

¶13

Order No.11 Dated : 10.10.2023

¶14

Instant petition has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 22.10.2020 under Sections 341, 342, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3, 4 of Prevention of Witch Craft Act in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No.238 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No.719 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla.

¶15

The order has been impugned on the ground that petitioner no.1 was not named in the F.I.R. and after investigation, only Rani Kumari was sent up for trial and charge sheet has been submitted against petitioner nos.2 and 3. Learned Court below while differing with the findings of the investigating agency, has taken cognizance against all these three petitioners without assigning any specific reason.

¶16

The impugned order has been challenged on the ground that petitioner no.1 is neither named in the F.I.R. nor has been named in the re-statement of the informant and witnesses in para 2, 3 and 4 of the case diary. Despite there being no material against the petitioner no.1, charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken against her without application of judicial mind.

¶17

It is further submitted that there are material contradictions in the prosecution version as stated in the F.I.R. and in the case diary during investigation.

¶18

Learned A.P.P. assisted by learned counsel on behalf of informant

¶19

have defended the impugned order. It is submitted that the F.I.R. is not to be accepted encyclopedia of the entire prosecution story. There is specific reference in the F.I.R. that petitioner nos.2 and 3 who are named in the F.I.R. and other family members conjointly identified the victim lady and assaulted her.

¶20

After having considered the rival submissions, it is apparent that both the parties are from the same village and are very well acquainted with each other. Despite this, the petitioner no.1 is not named in the F.I.R. nor her name comes in the statements of the witnesses in para 2, 3 and 4 of the case dairy. The cognizance appears to be taken appears to have been mechanically against the petitioner no.1 without any material on record.

¶21

Under the circumstance, the order taking cognizance so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, is set aside.

¶22

Further, I do not find any infirmity in the order taking cognizance with respect to other petitioners.

¶23

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶24

Anit

Rani Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rani Kumari 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

Krishna Kant Dubey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bijendra Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Cipla Limited through Its Authorized Representative Shehashis Sarkar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lokesh Kumar Turkar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vivek Kumar Alias Bittu Sao Vs the State of Jharkhand