The High Court rejected the petitioner's argument that delay in filing the FIR and lack of post-mortem report vitiated the lower court's order of cognizance. The court found witnesses supported the case and dismissed the quashing petition.
Quashing petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.2334 of 2015
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -77 Year- 2014 Thana -KHUDAGANJ District- NALANDA
(BIHARSHARIFF)
======================================================
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiv Sager Sharma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A.Haque Sahara(App)
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER
2 03-03-2017 The petitioners filed this petition for quashing of the order dated 10.09.2014, by which the learned S.D.J.M., Hilsa, Nalanda took cognizance under Section 364, 302, 201, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The informant alleged that on 05.06.2014, he was sleeping with his daughter Sapna, aged about 7 years, on his Darwaja . At about 11.30 in the night Shiv Charan Mistri, Sanjiv Mistri, Sanjeet Mistri, Rajmanti Devi, Mritunjay Mistri, Raja Mistri and Rajbali Yadav came to his Darwaja and forcibly took his daughter. His daughter cried out. The informant saw the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2334 of 2015 (2) dt.03-03-2017
2/3
accused persons taking his daughter towards North. The informant raised alarm and many persons saw the accused persons taking his daughter. On 10.06.2014, the informant got information that dead body of his daughter is found in a well and the informant lodged the case.
The police after investigation submitted final form finding the case not true against the accused persons on account of lack of evidence, but the learned S.D.J.M., Hilsa, Nalanda differing with the finding of the Investigating Officer took cognizance under Section 364, 302, 201, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no material on record to show that the petitioners kidnapped the daughter of the informant. The post-mortem is also not on record. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 05.06.2014, but when the dead body was recovered on 10.06.2014, the FIR was lodged. The FIR was lodged after inordinate delay. Therefore, the order of taking cognizance is bad, but I find that the submission of the petitioner is not acceptable only on account of delay in lodging the case. Order of taking cognizance cannot be said to be vitiated and bad. The informant and other witnesses have stated that they saw the petitioners taking the minor girl of the informant and after
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2334 of 2015 (2) dt.03-03-2017
3/3
five days her dead body was found in a well.
Considering the facts aforesaid, I find no illegality in
the order. Accordingly, the quashing petition is dismissed.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.)
Rakhi
U T
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there is sufficient material to quash the order of the S.D.J.M. taking cognizance under Section 364, 302, 201, 120B, and 34 of the IPC.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR vitiated the order of taking cognizance.
Whether the quashing petition should be allowed in view of lack of evidence and absence of post-mortem report.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mritunjay Mistri Sons
The State of Bihar
Prabhat Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
