Allowed

Kumar Saryu Anand v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Aug 2023Cr.M.P./357/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as no witness identified him and he was not postulated at the incident location, preventing abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 243 of 2011, including the order dated 28.06.2011 and 19.08.2011, were quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

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

¶1

¶2

Cr.M.P. No.357 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 357 of 2023

¶4

Kumar Saryu Anand @ Saryu Anand, aged about 54 years, s/o late Bhagwat Roy, resident of Village- Nazarmira, P.O.- Pahleja Barka, P.S.- Sonepur, Dist. Saran (Bihar), presently residing at Basant Vihar, P.O.- Harmu, P.S.-Argora, Dist. Ranchi

¶5

.... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Janki Kuar, wife of late Gulab Das, residing at Shahpur, Tola, Semartand, P.O. & P.S.- Chainpur, Dist.- Palamau (Jharkhand)

¶9

…. Opp. Parties

¶10

P R E S E N T

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶12

For the Petitioners : Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate : Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. …..

¶13

By the Court:-

¶14

Heard the parties.

¶15

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 entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 243 of 2011, including the order dated 28.06.2011 whereby and where under, cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 323, 504, 427 and 384 of Indian Penal Code and also to quash the order dated 19.08.2011 whereby and where under, nonbailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner.

¶16

¶17

Cr.M.P. No.357 of 2023

¶18

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with co-accused persons was member of unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the assembly vandalized the temple and obtained the signature of the complainant on plain paper and also cut the fruit bearing trees and other trees from the land of the complainant.

¶19

The learned S.D.J.M., Daltonganj on the basis of the compliant, statement on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses prima facie found the said offences to be true and issued summons and vide order dated 19.08.2011 though the service report of the summons were not returned, issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner.

¶20

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing attention of this Court to the statement of solemn affirmation of the complainant that she has not taken the name of the petitioner. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the inquiry witnesses have also not taken the name of the petitioner and only because his name has been mentioned in the complaint petition, without any supporting evidence, the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case against the petitioner and ordered for issue of summons. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a police officer who was Officer-in-Charge of Chainpur Police Station from 01.02.2001 to 18.10.2003 and at the time of alleged occurrence on 21.02.2011, the petitioner was posted at Ranchi and he was posted at Ranchi from 2009 to 2016 and so the petitioner is no way

¶21

¶22

Cr.M.P. No.357 of 2023

¶23

remotely associated with the alleged occurrence. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner when there is no allegation against him by any of the persons in the statement made under oath will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, it submitted that the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 243 of 2011, including the order dated 28.06.2011 as also the order dated 19.08.2011 be quashed and set aside.

¶24

Learned Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 243 of 2011, including the order dated 28.06.2011 and also the order dated 19.08.2011, in respect of the petitioner and submits that since the petitioner has been named in the complaint, the learned Magistrate has rightly found prima facie case against the petitioner as well. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.

¶25

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the complainant nor the inquiry witnesses have taken the name of the petitioner nor there is any allegation against him of committing any offence. It remains undisputed that the petitioner was not posted at Chainpur Police station on the alleged date of occurrence rather he was posted at Ranchi. There

¶26

4 Cr.M.P. No.357 of 2023

¶27

is no allegation that the petitioner has any personal interest in the alleged dispute. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law and in the interest of justice, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 243 of 2011, including the order dated 28.06.2011 as also the order dated 19.08.2011 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.

¶28

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 243 of 2011, including the order dated 28.06.2011 as also the order dated 19.08.2011 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.

¶29

In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.

¶30

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶31

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 10^th August, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

Kumar Saryu Anand v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumar Saryu Anand 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

Maheshwar Rajak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Badal Raj Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vikash Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dinesh Kumar Dubey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shailaja Prasad Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sivdatt Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand