Allowed

Durgesh Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 Nov 2023Cr.M.P./501/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand quashed the criminal proceeding against the petitioners. The court held the case was maliciously initiated to grab land and there was no evidence to show the deceased died due to homicide despite police findings of natural death.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceeding including the summoning order dated 10.01.2018 is quashed so far as the petitioners are concerned.

Durgesh Kumar Singh Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M. P. No. 501 of 2018

¶3

¶4

Durgesh Kumar Singh

¶5

Brajesh Kumar Singh

¶6

Dhirjesh Kumar Singh

¶7

Amardeep Ray @ Amardeep Kumar Ray

¶8

Kuldeep Ray @ Kuldeep Kumar Ray

¶9

Pratima Devi

¶10

Tanu Singh

¶11

Pushpa Devi … …. Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

The State of Jharkhand

¶14

Umesh Kumar Roy … …. Opp. Parties

¶15

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶16

----For the Petitioners : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. B.N. Ojha, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ranjit Kr. Tiwari, Advocate

¶17

Oral Order

¶18

07 / Dated : 02.11.2023

¶19

The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the summoning order dated 10.01.2018 passed in Complaint Case No. 860 of 2016 whereby and whereunder, prima facie case has been found to be made out under Sections 302, 201 and 120B of IPC.

¶20

Giridih Sadar (Jamua) P.S. Case No. 157 of 2013 was registered under Sections 364, 302, 420, 201 and 120B of IPC on the basis of a complaint filed by Umesh Kumar Roy against these petitioners.

¶21

The case of the informant in brief, as set out in the complaint/F.I.R was that father of the complainant are four brothers. Among them Mahadev Roy and Badri Singh died issueless leaving behind Devanti Devi who happened to be aunt of Bhagirath Singh. On 17.10.2011 under a criminal conspiracy accused Rajendra Roy and Tannu Singh got a WILL executed in their favour from Devanti Devi with respect to part of property and with respect to remaining part of the land, registered deed of sale was executed in the name of the accused Durgesh Kumar Singh on 22.10.2011.

¶22

After the said execution of the sale deed, it is alleged that deceased Devanti Devi was taken on the pretext of pilgrimage and thereafter she did not return. When the complainant enquired from accused Bhagirath Singh it came to be known that she was living in Sirka Coliery. When he went to meet her, she was found traceless regarding which an informatory petition bearing No. 1869 of 2012 was filed by him on 14.09.2012 before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih.

¶23

On 09.03.2012 Rajendra Ray, Bhagirath Singh and other family members came and informed that Devanti Devi had died on 08.03.2013 and she had been cremated.

¶24

This gave rise to suspicion that she had been done to death under a criminal conspiracy in order to take her property.

¶25

The police on investigation found the case to be of natural death, while she was living at Sirka Coliery at Ramgarh and submitted final form as mistake of fact.

¶26

After submission of final form, protest-cum-complaint was filed in which the statements of the complainant and five witnesses were recorded on the basis of which, the impugned summoning order has been passed.

¶27

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to implicate the petitioners in the present case. There is no material to show that Devanti Devi died Homicidal death and the police during investigation has returned definite finding that it is a case of natural death. Further in the statement of the complainant in para-16 it is stated that he had filed the case to force Durgesh for returning of the land. The inquiry witnesses are not the residents of Sirka at Ramgarh where Deventi Devi died and they have not stated anything regarding Homicidal death.

¶28

Learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the Complainant have defended the impugned summoning order.

¶29

On a plain reading of protest-cum-complaint petition as well as statement of the complainant and other witnesses, it is apparent that it is a classical case of malicious prosecution initiated avowedly to grab the land of the Petitioners. As a matter of fact, the complainant has gone on record to say in his statement on solemn affirmation that he has filed this case to get the land back from the accused. There is neither direct nor circumstantial evidence to make out any offence. There is no material to show that Devanti Devi died Homicidal death. Yet unfortunately without appreciating these materials the trial Court has issued the summoning order which is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶30

Under the circumstance, entire criminal proceeding including the summoning order dated 10.01.2018 passed in Complaint Case No. 860 of 2016 is quashed so far as the petitioners, above named, are concerned.

¶31

Cr. Misc. Petition is allowed.

¶32

AKT/Satayendra

¶33

Uploaded

Durgesh Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durgesh Kumar Singh 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

Ms Kabadi Shankarasa Clothing Company Represented By Its Gpa Holder R K Mishra Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Kanhaiya Lal Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jugeshwar Upadhyay Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jawed Ashraf And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Meera Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Saboo Sodium Chloro Limited Represented through Its Director Sanjay Sarna Vs the State of Jharkhand