Allowed¶27

Reena Devi Alias Reena Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Jun 2024Cr.M.P./242/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR; Section 306/34 IPC abetment of suicide; cognizance taken by Magistrate differing with police final report; cognizance without reasoned order; grave illegality; abuse of process of law; settlement affidavit before Notary Public dated 21.04.2023; acquittal of co-accused Nilofar Khatoon in Sessions Trial No. 156 of 2019; informant P.W.5 declared hostile; Chandankiyari P.S. Case No. 67 of 2018 (S); G.R. No. 564 of 2022; I.A. No. 3490 of 2024 disposed; High Court of Jharkhand; Cr.M.P. No. 242 of 2024; Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.

What did the court decide?

Entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report of Chandankiyari P.S. Case No. 67 of 2018 (S) arising out of G.R. No. 564 of 2022 quashed and set aside; Interlocutory Application No. 3490 of 2024 disposed of. ¶27

Reena Devi Alias Reena Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Magistrate acted illegally in taking cognizance under Section 306/34 IPC in Chandankiyari P.S. Case No. 67 of 2018 (S) / G.R. No. 564 of 2022 by differing with the police final report without any reasoned order identifying the materials against the petitioner. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed a grave illegality in taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 306/34 IPC by differing with the police final report (which had found the allegation against the petitioner not true) without any reasoned order mentioning the materials against her.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Since the conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak, continuation of the criminal proceeding against her will amount to abuse of process of law; accordingly the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR of Chandankiyari P.S. Case No. 67 of 2018 (S) arising out of G.R. No. 564 of 2022 was quashed and set aside.

¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing — S. 482 Cr.P.C. — Cognizance under S. 306/34 IPC taken by the learned Magistrate in Chandankiyari P.S. Case No. 67 of 2018 (S) (G.R. No. 564 of 2022) despite the police final report finding the allegation against the petitioner untrue, and without any reasoned order disclosing the materials relied upon, held to be a grave illegality. With the co-accused (Nilofar Khatoon) already acquitted in Sessions Trial No. 156 of 2019, the informant having turned hostile and having admitted the petitioner's non-responsibility in a settlement affidavit dated 21.04.2023, and conviction being remote and bleak, continuation of the proceeding was held to be an abuse of the process of law. The entire criminal proceeding including the FIR was quashed and set aside; the petition was allowed and I.A. No. 3490 of 2024 was disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 242 of 2024

¶2

Reena Devi @ Reena Kumari, aged about 33 years, wife of Kamal Kumar, resident of Village-Simulia, P.O.-Rangamatia, P.S.Chandankiyari, Dist.-Bokaro, Jharkhand

¶3

.... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Md. Ali Hussain Ansari, aged about 44 years, son of Hazi Allahuddin Ansari, resident of Village-Sutaribear, P.O. & P.S.Chandankiari, Dist.-Bokaro, Jharkhand

¶7

…. Opp. Parties

¶8

P R E S E N T

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. S.K. Tiwari, Spl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Nishant Kr. Roy, Advocate

¶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 to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report of Chandankiyari P.S. Case No. 67 of 2018 (S) arising out of G.R. No. 564 of 2022 in which the court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 jointly drawing attention of this Court to the Interlocutory Application No.3490 of 2024 which is supported

¶15

Cr.M.P. No.242 of 2024

¶16

¶17

by separate affidavits of the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2-informant; submits that therein it has been mentioned that the matter has been settled between the parties and to that effect an affidavit has been prepared before the Notary Public dated 21.04.2023 and the informant has categorically admitted that the petitioner is not responsible for the death of his daughter and has not harassed his daughter in any manner. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the informant who was examined as P.W.5 in S.T. Case No.156 of 2019 in respect of coaccused has stated that the informant was not aware about the contents of the FIR though he has signed the same and the informant denied the allegation levelled against the petitioner and the co-accused-Nilofar Khatoon. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that consequent upon the acquittal of Nilofar Khatoon-the co-accused who faced the trial, the possibility of the conviction of the petitioner became remote and bleak, more so because of the compromise. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that police after investigation of the case found the allegation against the petitioner to be not true and did not send up the petitioner for trial but the learned Magistrate without mentioning what are the materials basing upon which it found that there is material in the record to prima facie found that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code, has taken cognizance of the same. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the trial of the co-

¶18

Cr.M.P. No.242 of 2024

¶19

¶20

accused-Nilofar Khatoon in Sessions Trial No.156 of 2019, the copy of the judgment of which has been kept at Annexure-4 of this criminal miscellaneous petition, none of the witnesses could say the reason of commission of suicide by the victim. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the informant who was the P.W.5 of the said Sessions Trial No. 156 of 2019 was declared hostile and even though the prosecution put leading question to him that he has stated before police that the petitioner was harassing the deceased, he has categorically stated that he did not make any such statement before the police. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the only allegation against the petitioner was she being a teacher in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidalaya was harassing the deceased which led her to commit suicide but the said allegation did not find any support from any of the witnesses who were examined in the trial of co-accused-Nilofar Khatoon and the co-accused-Nilofar Khatoon has been acquitted as the prosecution failed to establish the charge. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

¶21

Having heard the submissions made at the bar and going through the record, it is pertinent to mention here that in view of the undisputed facts of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed a grave illegality by differing with the final report submitted by the police after finding the allegation against the petitioner to be not true and did not send her up for trial and without any reasoned order

¶22

Cr.M.P. No.242 of 2024

¶23

¶24

by mentioning as to what are the materials against the petitioner which led it to take the cognizance under Section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code, the learned Magistrate has committed a grave illegality in taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶25

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that because of the reasons mentioned above, since the conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak, hence continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report of Chandankiyari P.S. Case No. 67 of 2018 (S) arising out of G.R. No. 564 of 2022 be quashed and set aside.

¶26

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report of Chandankiyari P.S. Case No. 67 of 2018 (S) arising out of G.R. No. 564 of 2022 is quashed and set aside.

¶27

In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.

¶28

Consequently, the interlocutory application no.3490 of 2024 is disposed of.

¶29

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶30

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 10^th June, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

¶31

Cr.M.P. No.242 of 2024 4

Reena Devi Alias Reena Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reena Devi Alias Reena Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parwati Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhawesh Kumar Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Uday Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand

Ms Zee Laboratories Limited through Its Technical Director Anant Jain Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sandeep Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vikrant Lal Sharma Alias Bikrant Lal Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand