Dismissed

Akhileshwar Diwedi And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC12 Jan 2024Cr.M.P./2021/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C due to a false civil complaint, the Court held no interference is warranted as the lower court had prima facie materials, despite a Defence report citing improper investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing dismissed; interim order vacated; pending petition disposed of.

Akhileshwar Diwedi And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And… — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶3

Cr.M.P. No. 2021 of 2016

¶4

----

¶5

Akhileshwar Diwedi @ Akhilesh Kumar Diwedi and Others

¶6

.... Petitioners

¶7

-- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand and Others .... Opposite Parties

¶8

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶10

For the Petitioners	:-	Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the State	:-	Mrs.Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.
For the O.P.No.2	:-	Mr. Afaque Ahmed, Advocate
		----

¶11

4 /12.01.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2.

¶12

This petition is filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 16.10.2015 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chatra in Complaint Case No.419 of 2014, pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chatra.

¶13

The complaint case no.604 of 2014 was filed by the O.P.No.2 alleging therein that complainant by cultivation and labour maintained her family. At the time of occurrence she has been cultivated the crops, chilly, ladies finger and Arhar pulse and she was fencing her land and on that time accused persons were came and started using filthy language and prohibited from fencing and one Akhileshwar Diwedi instigated others to assault her due and due to fear she entered the house and shut the door and by force accused persons were opened the door and assaulted her. It is also alleged that one Pappu Ram took her jewelleries and Bhupal Dubey

¶14

¶15

caused to damage her utensils and the accused Rampravesh Singh caused damaged of her radio and Ramautar Singh took map in the bags. It is further stated that previously she lodged the case against Pappu Ram and others and said case he was convicted by the court, due to fear she could not come to police station and when she went to police station accused persons prohibited and at last she lodged the complaint case.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset submits that petitioner no.1 has left for his heavenly abode and now he is only confined this petition for the petitioner nos.2 to 5.

¶17

In view of such submission, let name of petitioner no.1 be deleted from the array of the petitioners in the cause title. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the matter was sent by the learned court under section 156(3) Cr.P.C to the police for registration of FIR and pursuant to that Hunterganj P.S. Case No.03 of 2014 was registered. He submits that the said case has been investigated by the police and the police has submitted final form whereby the petitioners have not been sent up for trial. On protest petition the learned court has taken cognizance which is not in accordance with law. He submits that no reason has been assigned in the impugned order dated 16.10.2015 and the learned court has taken cognizance. He further submits that the matter is civil in nature and in view of that falsely the petitioners have been implicated. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.

¶18

The said submission is being resisted by Mr. Afaque Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2. He submits that in the counter affidavit he has annexed the deposition of the enquiry witnesses who have supported the case and thereafter the learned court has taken cognizance. He further submits that final form is dated 5.5.2014 wherein subsequently, on the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, the report was prepared by the S.D.O., Chatra wherein it has been

¶19

¶20

disclosed that the police has not investigated the matter properly and the O.P.No.2 was being harassed by the petitioners. On these grounds, he submits that no case of interference is made out.

¶21

Mrs. Priya Shrestha, the learned counsel for the respondent State submits that it appears that order is a reasoned one.

¶22

The Court finds that admittedly earlier the complaint case was sent under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C and final form has been submitted whereby the petitioners have not been sent up for trial. On the protest petition and looking into the enquiry witnesses the learned court has taken cognizance. This is not a case that the learned court without providing any cogent reason has taken cognizance by order dated 16.10.2015. In the order taking cognizance he has reduced in writing that prima facie materials against the petitioners and further on the direction of Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, the S.D.O., Chatra has given report dated 22.10.2014 saying that the police has not investigated the matter properly whereas, the final form is dated 05.05.2014. The enquiry witnesses documents are brought on record in counter affidavit wherein they have stated that they have seen the occurrence and if such a situation is there, the only requirement is that the learned court has to look into the prima facie materials and pass appropriate order and that has been complied by the learned court. Even accepting the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that for a civil wrong the case has been filed, nobody is authorized under the law to take the law in their own hands which has been done by the petitioners. No case of interference is made out.

¶23

Cr.M.P. No.2021 of 2016 is dismissed.

¶24

Interim order if any also stands vacated.

¶25

Pending petition if any also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶26

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶27

SI/,

Akhileshwar Diwedi And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhileshwar Diwedi And Ors. v. The 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kasif Zaya Khan Alias Kashif Zia Khan And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Shailendra Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Dhiraj Prasad And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Tokan Mahto Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Akash Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Alak Sundar Basu Vs the State of Jharkhand