Allowed

Krishna Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Nov 2023Cr.M.P./663/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition and quashed the revisional order summoning petitioners as accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The court held that exercising this power at the fag end of trial when petitioners were initially named in the FIR but not sent for trial was not proper.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 06.01.2018 in Cr. Revision No. 27 of 2016 is quashed so far as the petitioners are concerned.

Krishna Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M. P. No. 663 of 2018

¶3

¶4

Krishna Prasad

¶5

Madhuri Devi … …. Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Ranjni Devi @ Babita … …. Opp. Parties

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

¶11

For the Petitioners : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate For the State : Ms. Priya Shrestha, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : M/s Rohit Roy & Vaibhav Mayank, Advocates

¶12

Oral Order

¶13

04 / Dated : 09.11.2023

¶14

The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 06.01.2018 passed in Cr. Revision No. 27 of 2016, whereby and where under, the criminal revision preferred against the order dated 05.02.2015 passed by S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur in G.R. No. 70 of 2008 (Jugsalai (Bagbera) P.S. Case No. 03 of 2008 under Sections 498A, 405, 406, 34 of the I.P.C. was allowed and the matter was remanded before the trial Court for passing order afresh on the petition which was earlier rejected under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

¶15

Initially Jugsalai Bagbera P.S. Case No. 3 of 2008 was registered under Sections 498A, 405, 406, 34 of the I.P.C. on the basis of the complaint petition filed by Smt. Rajni Devi @ Babita against all together five accused persons including both these petitioners.

¶16

The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against three accused persons and these petitioners were not sent up for trial. After cognizance charge was framed and five witnesses were examined during trial after which petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C was filed for summoning the petitioners as accused in the present case.

¶17

It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners that it is a belated attempt on the part of the informant to implicate the present petitioners in the present case at the fag end of trial. It is settled law on the point that once an accused has been discharged of the offence, he cannot be proceeded against by invoking power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

¶18

Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 submits that the trial Court has rejected the petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C on the ground of contradiction appearing in the testimony of the witnesses regarding which Revisional Court

¶19

observed that the contradiction cannot be looked into at the stage while considering the petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. There is strong evidence regarding complicity of the petitioners in the alleged offence.

¶20

In order to proceed under section 319 of the Cr.P.C., it is necessary that the person should not have been shown mentioned as an accused. The power conferred on the Court is extraordinary which is to be exercised for compelling revisions. In the present case petitioners are uncle–in-law and aunt-in-law were named in the FIR but not sent for trial. The trial is at its fag end. Under the circumstance this Court is of the view that exercise of power under Section 319, for summoning the petitioners as an accused is not proper and is accordingly set aside.

¶21

Under the circumstance, the order dated 06.01.2018 passed in Cr. Revision No. 27 of 2016 is quashed so far as the petitioners, above named, are concerned.

¶22

Instant Cr. Misc. Petition is allowed.

¶23

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶24

AKT/Satayendra

¶25

Uploaded

Krishna Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Prasad 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

Krishna Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Justice Anil Kumar Sinha Vs Eastern Railways through Its Chief Administrative Officer

Abinash Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Matilda Ekka Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suman Anand Vs the State of Jharkhand

Niranjan Lal Todi Vs the State of Jharkhand