Dismissed

Abha Kumari v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC15 Jan 2014CR. WJC/571/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition regarding an FIR under SC/ST (PoA) Act and IPC sections, the petitioner sought quashment of investigation, claiming to be a major and negating kidnapping allegations. The High Court examined her age and prior bail order. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court held a voluntary statement for bail cannot substitute a Section 164 statement and rejected the quashment

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of FIR and investigation was rejected; directed for voluntary recording of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by investigating officer.

Abha Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.571 of 2013 ====================================================== Abha Kumari D/O Trishul Nehru Ganghi Resident Of Block Colony, Jahanabad, P.S.- Town Jahanabad, District- Jahanabad .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Inspector General Of Police (Prosecution) Bihar, Patna 3. The Superintendent Of Police Jahanabad 4. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police Jahanabad 5. The Officer In Charge Town Police Station, Jahanabad 6. Trishul Nehru Gandhi S/O Late Munshi Choudhary Resident Of Block Colony, Jahanabad, P.S.- Town, Jahanabad, District- Jahanabad .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghwanand, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Arvind Kumar, AC to SC-28. For the Respondent No.6 : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh & Mr. Umesh Kumar, Advocates. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 5 15-01-2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional P.P. 2. Petitioner who happens to be victim of SC/ST Jehanabad P.S.Case No.14 of 2013 registered under Section 366(A), 341, 323, 34 of the IPC and 3(1)(X)2(V) of SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities)Act as prayed for quashing of the FIR/investigation of the above referred case on the grounds (a) she happens to be major one and for that relied upon Annexure-2 the

¶2

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.571 of 2013 (5) dt.15-01-2014

¶3

¶4

certificate granted by Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board, Patna wherein her date of birth happens to be 14.03.1990 and (b) during course of entertaining Cr.Misc.No.16688 of 2013 the petitioner of that very criminal miscellaneous was allowed provisional bail subject to ultimate result of the statement of the petitioner which was to be recorded as so directed. Petitioner had appeared on her own before the learned court below and a statement in pursuance of direction of the High Court was recorded whereupon the provisional bail was confirmed. Hence being major as well as negativating the incidence of kidnapping, petitioner had fervently resiled the allegation.

¶5

At the other hand, the learned AC to SC-28 has submitted that petitioner had withdrawn herself during course of investigation while the occurrence was substantially supported by the prosecution witnesses and on account thereof against some of the accused chargesheet was submitted while against remaining the investigation is going on. Therefore, as the investigation is still pending presence of petitioner should be before the investigating authority and through aforesaid process her statement should be recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., her age be ascertained and in case she happens to be major one, certainly the investigation will conclude under the guise of her statement.

¶6

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.571 of 2013 (5) dt.15-01-2014

¶7

¶8

The learned counsel for the informant has endorsed the

¶9

view.

¶10

Having the controversy with regard to status of the witness coming forward on their own for having their statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. during course of investigation sorted out in its finality by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jogendra Nahak and others v. State of Orissa and others in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 2565 directing that the statement of a witness under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. is to be recorded only after having sponsored by the investigating authority. Therefore, the statement of the petitioner whatever been recorded happens to be for the purpose of adjudicating upon the privilege of bail and on account thereof could not be treated as a statement in terms of Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.

¶11

As such, the prayer at the present juncture happens to be misconceived and is accordingly rejected.

¶12

However, if petitioner so desires may have her presence before the investigating officer for the purpose of her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C as well as for the purpose of ascertainment of her age which should be conducted preferably on the same day by the investigating officer, if so approached. During course thereof, neither any threat nor

¶13

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.571 of 2013 (5) dt.15-01-2014

¶14

¶15

coercion, allurement will be imposed/inflicted against the petitioner. In case, petitioner is found major then in that event her statement will get priority as well as influence over ultimate result of investigation.

¶16

(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)

¶17

B.Kr./-

Abha Kumari v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abha Kumari 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramod Kumar and Anr. Vs The Union Of India customs Department

Nav Kant Jha Vs The State Of Bihar Through Director General Of Police, Bihar and Ors.

Md. Mir Hasim and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary, Department Of Mines, Govt. Of Biahr and Ors.

Bhim Mahton Vs The State Of Bihar

Bharat Poddar Vs The State Of Bihar

Rekha Devi Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.