Dismissed

Sultana Alias Afsana Begum v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC13 Dec 2023Cr.M.P./126/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of an order where the Revisional Court discharged accused persons in a Section 498-A case. The petitioner challenged the quashing of the discharge order, arguing the Revisional Court erred in rejecting the discharge petition earlier. The bench dismissed the petition finding no illegality in the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

None. The criminal miscellaneous petition dismissing the prayer to quash the order dated 01.12.2015.

Sultana Alias Afsana Begum Vs The State Of Jharkhand And… — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

1 Cr.M.P. No. 126 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr.M.P. No. 126 of 2016

¶4

Sultana @ Afsana Begum … Petitioner

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Md. Alamgir Ansari

¶8

Jamila Begum

¶9

Md. Saghir

¶10

Md. Samir

¶11

Afsana

¶12

Masood Alam

¶13

Shabana … Opposite Parties

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶15

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, A.P.P. For O.P. Nos.2 to 8 : Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Advocate

¶16

07/13.12.2023 Heard Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 8.

¶17

This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 01.12.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Jamshedpur in Criminal Revision No.74 of 2015 filed by opposite party nos. 2 to 8, whereby, the criminal revision has been allowed and thereby quashed the order dated 12.03.2015 passed in connection with G.R. No.3695 of 2012 (Mango P.S. Case No.612 of 2012) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate has been pleased to dismiss the discharge petition filed by opposite party nos. 2 to 8 under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

¶18

Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is arising out of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner is the informant and private opposite parties are in-laws of the petitioner. He further submits that private opposite parties have filed

¶19

¶20

Cr.M.P. No. 126 of 2016

¶21

discharge petition, which was rejected by the learned Court and the learned Revisional Court has quashed the order passed by the learned Court and remanded the matter to the learned Court and the learned Court has again dismissed the discharge petition filed by private opposite parties under Section 239 Cr.P.C., which was again challenged by the private opposite parties in criminal revision being Criminal Revision No.74 of 2015 and the learned Revisional Court has quashed the order passed by the learned Court. He further submits that the Court is required to see the evidence collected during course of investigation and if the material on the case record is sufficient for framing of charge, the learned Court should proceed against the accused persons from framing of charge against them.

¶22

Learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 8 submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the learned Revisional Court has rightly passed the order.

¶23

In view of the above, it appears that by passing a fresh order, the learned Revisional Court has exercised its power of discharging the accused persons. Further, opposite party nos. 2 to 8 are in-laws of the petitioner and only being the in-laws, they have been implicated in the case. The case is arising out of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Revisional Court vide order dated 01.12.2015 has found that the order passed by the learned Court was improper and since the matter was remanded back by the learned Revisional Court and in absence of any judicial mind and in a mechanical way, the discharge petition has been rejected by the learned Court and considering these aspects of the matter, the opposite party nos. 2 to 8 have been discharged by the learned

¶24

¶25

Cr.M.P. No. 126 of 2016

¶26

Revisional Court. Moreover, the husband of the petitioner is facing trial.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid facts, it appears that there is no illegality in

¶28

the impugned order.

¶29

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

¶30

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶31

Ajay/

Sultana Alias Afsana Begum v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sultana Alias Afsana Begum 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

Paresh Puran And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sunil Kumar And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ujjawal Kumar Vs State Of Jhakrhand And Anr.

Md Taj Mian And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Girinder Singh Alias Garinder Singh Alias Jitender Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Manoj Bhagat Alias Manoj Kumar Bhagat Vs The State Of Jharkhand