Partly allowed

Anil Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Sept 2023Cr.M.P./194/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the order dated 13.07.2020 taking cognizance in a criminal case because the Magistrate acted under the erroneous impression that a charge sheet was submitted, whereas the police had submitted a final form stating allegations were false. The Court refused to quash the FIR due to specific allegations against the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 13.07.2020 quashed qua petitioner; Petition allowed to the extent of quashing that order and quashing FIR dismissed; Magistrate directed to pass fresh order.

Anil Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Cr.M.P. No.194 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 194 of 2023

¶4

Anil Kumar @ Anil Prasad, aged about 32 years, son of Shree Kedar Nayak, resident of village –Achaljamu, P.S. –Bishnugarh, P.O. – Achaljamu, District –Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, PIN -825312, presently residing at C/o –Shree Janak Sahu, Road No. 6, Bhabha Nagar, Chunna Bhatta, H.B. Road, Kokar, P.O. –Kokar, P.S. –Sadar, District –Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN -834001, Mobile No. 9576735800, Adhar No. 7789 8987 1054

¶5

.... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand …. Opp. Party

¶8

P R E S E N T

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.

¶11

By the Court:-

¶12

Heard the parties.

¶13

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the F.I.R. and also to quash the order dated 13.07.2020 and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 240 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2572 of 2018 in which case vide order dated 13.07.2020, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 448/341/354B/328/506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code under the impression that the charge sheet has been submitted

¶14

¶15

Cr.M.P. No.194 of 2023

¶16

inter alia against the petitioner and the co-accused persons for commission of the offences punishable under Section 448/341/ 354B/328/506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

Drawing attention of this Court to the certified copy of the Final Form No. 228 of 2020, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact after investigation, police submitted final report stating that the allegations are false but without expressly differing with the said final form, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance. Hence, it is submitted that the said order dated 13.07.2020 is not sustainable in law.

¶18

The learned Special P.P. fairly submits that final form has been submitted in this case after investigation of the case by the police stating the allegations were found to be not true but submits that the learned Magistrate has the power to differ with the final form submitted by the police and to take cognizance. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

¶19

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the offences under the wrong impression that charge sheet has been submitted inter-alia against the petitioner and the co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 448/341/354B/328/506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code but in fact police

¶20

¶21

Cr.M.P. No.194 of 2023

¶22

submitted final form after investigation of the case, stating the allegations to be not true.

¶23

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the said order dated 13.07.2020 having been passed, based on erroneous premises, the same is not sustainable in law as in case, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, intended to differ with the final form submitted by police, in the first instance, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, ought to have mentioned in the said order dated 13.07.2020 that police has not sent up inter-alia the petitioner and the co-accused persons for trial and by discussing the materials in the record, could have differed with the same and could have taken cognizance instead but having not done so, this Court is of the considered view that the said order dated 13.07.2020, passed in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 240 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2572 of 2018 is not sustainable in law. Hence, the order dated 13.07.2020, passed in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 240 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2572 of 2018 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

¶24

So far as the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. is concerned, perusal of the record reveals that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that being in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons, the petitioner along with co-accused persons trespassed to the house of the informant, outraged her modesty and administered poisonous substance being phenyl to the informant and criminally

¶25

4 Cr.M.P. No.194 of 2023

¶26

intimidated her. In view of the specific allegation against the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to quash the F.I.R.

¶27

The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

¶28

In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.

¶29

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶30

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 11^th September, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

Anil Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Iyamin Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shamsher Khan Alias Shamsher Hazam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Uttam Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bipin Kumar Bhagat Alias Bipin Bhagat Vs the State of Jharkhand

Harihar Prasad Sahu Alias Hari Saw Alias Harihar Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand