Allowed

S.S.Ahmad And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC15 Jun 2023Cr.M.P./1586/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated by a theft complaint filed 27 days after alleged occurrences. The judgment held the case was maliciously filed as a counter-blast to a domestic dispute case, noting lack of police involvement and Family Court application requirements.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 04.08.2011 in connection with C/Case No. 243 of 2010 is quashed.

S.S.Ahmad And Anr. Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr.M.P. No.1586 of 2011

¶4

S.S. Ahmad

¶5

Md. Shakil @ Md. Shakil Neyazi @ Md. Shakeel

¶6

…Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶9

Gulam Hasnain

¶10

..... …Opposite Parties

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶12

¶13

For the Petitioners : Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, Advocate For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Md. Kaisar Alam, Advocate

¶14

11/ Dated:-15.06.2023

¶15

Heard Mr. K.S. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Md. Kaisar Alam, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

¶16

This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 04.08.2011 in connection with C/Case No. 243 of 2010, pending in the Court of learned SDJM, Gumla.

¶17

The complaint petition has been filed alleging therein that his son has been married with daughter of accused no 1 on 27/4/10 then girl came to her matrimonial house however after one week she was taken by her father to Dhanbad with saying that she will return after a week however she did not returned then his son went to Dhanbad to bring her but she did not returned rather they tried to convince him to stay at separate place but he refused.

¶18

It was further alleged that wife of the complainant died on 2/9/10 which was informed to the accused person then on 3/9/10 all of the accused person came to Gumla and stayed at room situated at upper floor of his house where there house hold articles jewellery cash and other things were kept however all the accused person broke the lock and took articles and cash amounting to Rs. 1 lakh without informing them in the next morning.

¶19

It was further alleged that they tried to find out of their belongings but failed then went to Dhanbad and asked about the same which was however refused by them and further they did not allow her daughter in law to come to Gumla hence he filed the

¶20

¶21

present complaint.

¶22

Mr. K.S. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 is Samdhi and petitioner no.2 is brother-in-law of the son of the complainant. He submits that in the complaint petition four persons have been made accused in the complaint petition including the wife of the son of the complainant however, learned court has taken cognizance against only these two persons which suggests that the case has been malafidely filed in view of the fact that the wife of the son of the complainant has already filed a case under section 498A of I.P.C. He submits that allegations are made that they went to the house of the complainant for attending rituals of death of wife of the complainant and during the period of stay, they have stolen golden articles. He submits that the said case was filed after 27 days of the alleged occurrence which suggests that the case has been filed maliciously.

¶23

On the other, Mr. Md. Kaisar Alam, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that it is evident fact that the petitioners and complainant are relatives however, during the rites of death of wife of the complainant occurrence has taken place on 02.09.2010 and the complaint case was filed on 30.09.2010. He submits that negotiation was going on between the complainant and the petitioners and that is why belatedly case has been filed.

¶24

Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned court has taken cognizance on the basis of complaint petition and solemn affirmation.

¶25

In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties the court has gone through the materials on record and finds that in view of submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and O.P. No. 2 there are relationship between the complainant and the petitioners that the petitioner no. 1 is Samdhi and petitioner no.2 is brother-in-law of the son of the complainant. The wife of the son of the complainant has also been made accused in the complaint petition however, the learned court has not taken cognizance against her. Prior to filing of the present complaint case the wife of the son of the complainant has filed a case under section 498A of I.P.C. Thereafter the present case has been filed which suggests that this case is in the nature of counter-blast of earlier case filed by the wife of the son of the complainant under

¶26

¶27

section 498A of I.P.C. Further if allegation of theft is there, the police has not been called upon and in the complaint petition itself it has not been disclosed that the complainant has tried to lodge F.I.R. and police has refused to lodge F.I.R. thereafter complaint has been filed. The complaint petition has been filed after delay of 27 days of the alleged occurrence which suggests that the case has been filed as afterthought of 498A I.P.C case filed by the wife of the son of the complainant.

¶28

On query made by this Court with regard to delay in lodging the complaint petition, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that negotiations were going on and on further query with regard to what type of negotiation was going on, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that as the petitioners and complainant are relatives that is why negotiations were going.

¶29

If the serious allegation of theft was there, immediate action was required to be taken however, after 27 days of the alleged occurrence the present complaint has been filed which suggests that this case has maliciously been filed. To put criminal law in motion by examining witnesses is also deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Pepsi Foods Ltd. V. Special Judicial Magistrate’ (1998) 5 SCC 749.

¶30

In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 04.08.2011 in connection with C/Case No. 243 of 2010, pending in the Court of learned SDJM, Gumla, is quashed.

¶31

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. Interim order is vacated.

¶32

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶33

Satyarthi/-

S.S.Ahmad And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.S.Ahmad And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neema Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jahid Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Meena Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajeev Kumar Singh Rajeev Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand Thr.C.B.I.

Saraswati Devi And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Arjun Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Neema Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jahid Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Meena Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajeev Kumar Singh  Rajeev Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand Thr.C.B.I.

Saraswati Devi And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Arjun Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Rajeev Kumar Singh Rajeev Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand Thr.C.B.I.