Allowed

Ratish Chandra Jha v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC3 Jan 2014CR. WJC/481/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court granted a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR. The Court held that once the impugned order of the State Election Commission directing the FIR's registration was quashed, continuing the criminal prosecution against the petitioner was untenable; accordingly, the FIR was quashed to his extent and the petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

The FIR bearing Dhoraiya P.S. Case No.40/2013 is quashed with regard to the petitioner Ratish Chandra Jha only.

Ratish Chandra Jha Vs The State Of Bihar… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Writ No.481 of 2013

¶3

====================================================== Ratish Chandra Jha, son of Late Kameshwar Jha, resident of village Chainpur, P.S. Bangaon, Distt. Saharsa at Present Principal Incharge, Shayama Charan Sanskrit Vidyapith, Bounshi, P.S. Bounshi, Distt. Banka .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate cum District Election Officer, (Panchayat) Banka 3. The District Magistrate, Banka 4. The State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna through its Secretary 5. The State Election Commissioner, the State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna 6. The Joint Election Commissioner, the State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna 7. The Block Development Officer, Dhoraiya (Banka) .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Tara Nath Jha, Advocate For the Respondent State: Mr. M. Rahman, A.C. to S.C.-3 For the Respondent S.E.C.: Mr. Amit Shrivasatava, Advocate Mr. Girish Pandey, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER

¶4

03-01-2014 Heard Mr. Tara Nath Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M. Rahman, learned A.C. to S.C.-3 representing the State and Mr. Amit Shrivastava, learned counsel representing the State Election Commission.

¶5

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.481 of 2013 (8) dt.03-01-2014

¶6

2 / 4

¶7

A Kundali; alleged to have been prepared by the petitioner Ratish Chandra Jha with regard to date of birth of Smt. Anu Kumari which was subsequently spotted to be collusive one by the State Election Commission, knell against the petitioner whereupon, even without noticing the petitioner, an order was passed on 20.3.2013 directing for institution of a case against Smt. Anu Kumari and others including the petitioner, on account thereof, the petitioner had preferred C.W.J.C. No. 7371 of 2013 and the same was allowed vide order dated 16.4.2013. The operative portion of the order is quoted below:-

¶8

“In the circumstances, this Court finds that the order of the State Election Commissioner dated 20.03.2013, so far as petitioner is concerned, is bad in law. The same is accordingly quashed. As a consequence, no FIR shall be registered and no criminal prosecution shall be launched against the petitioner pursuant to the said order of the State Election Commissioner, if not already registered.”

¶9

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that even in the aforesaid background wherein the order dated 20.3.2013 passed by the State Election Commissioner was set aside to the extent of interest of petitioner, the State Election Commissioner as well as the State failed to withdraw the case

¶10

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.481 of 2013 (8) dt.03-01-2014

¶11

3 / 4

¶12

bearing Dhoraiya P.S. Case No.40/2013 to the extent of petitioner, wherein apart from others, petitioner has also been added as an accused. It has further been submitted that in the background of order dated 16.4.2013 passed on C.W.J.C. No. 7371 of 2013, the aforesaid F.I.R. could not survive with regard to the petitioner and on account thereof needs quashing of the same to the extent of interest of petitioner.

¶13

Mr. M. Rahman, learned A.C. to S.C.-3 representing the State and Mr. Amit Shrivastava, learned counsel representing the State Election Commission, fairly concede that when the order dated 20.3.2013 passed by the State Election Commissioner is found quashed so far, interest of petitioner is concerned, then in that event, the F.I.R. should not be allowed to continue against the petitioner.

¶14

Taking into account the materials available on the record, it is evident that after having the order dated 20.3.2013 annulled vide order dated 16.4.2013 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7371 of 2013 to the extent of interest of the petitioner, continuing with criminal prosecution launched at the behest of the informant Hari Shankar Pandey on that very score, in pursuance of order of State Election Commissioner, did not justify its sustenance and on account thereof, Dhoraiya P.S. Case No.40/2013 is directed to be

¶15

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.481 of 2013 (8) dt.03-01-2014

¶16

4 / 4

¶17

quashed with regard to petitioner Ratish Chandra Jha, only.
Consequent thereupon, petition is allowed.
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)
Pawan/-

Ratish Chandra Jha v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratish Chandra Jha v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

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

Ram Naresh Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Janak Singh Vs The State Of Bihar Through The District Magistrate Siwan and Ors.

Harishchandra Singh and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Milan Kumari @ Milan Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Vijai Rai @ Bijoy Roy Vs State of Bihar

Ramashray Sah Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.