The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2288 of 2016 Sanichar Mahto Versus ...... … Petitioner The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .…. … -------- Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Anand Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar Ram, Advocate Mr. Abhisekh Saran, Advocate For the State : Ms. Sushma Aind, A.P.P. For the O.P. Nos. 2 to 6 & 8-Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate 08/ 29.02.2024: Heard Mr. Anand Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the …………… petitioner, Ms. Sushma Aind, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing order dated 29.07.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Criminal Revision No. 201 of 2013 whereby the order dated 30.07.2013 passed in P.C.R. Case No. 99 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 109 of 2010 was affirmed by the learned court. 3. The initially First Information Report being Karon P.S. Case No. 13 of 2010, G.R. Case No.109 of 2010 was instituted on 17.03.2010, under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Baleshwar Mahto, Bishan Mahto, Pramod Mahto, Sano Mahto, Pokhal Mahto, Sirpu Mahto and Surendra Mahto with an allegation that on 16.03.2010 at 06:00 p.m. Surendra Mahto called the nephew of the complainant namely Bandhu Mahto and took him away by saying that they will return shortly at about 08:00 P.M. The petitioner was returning from Jodamo on a bicycle and saw that the accused persons had murdered Bandhu Mahto and were carrying the dead body in a bundle and thrown away the said bundle and in the light of Torch he found that the nephew of the complainant was lying dead. 4. Mr. Anand Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially F.I.R. being Karon P.S. Case No. 13 of 2010 was instituted which was investigated by the police in which final form was submitted whereby the accused persons were not sent up for trial thereafter the protest case was filed. He submits that the petitioner was examined on solemn affirmation and five enquiry witnesses were examined and they all have supported the case of the petitioner inspite of that the learned court has been pleased to dismiss the said complaint by order dated 30.07.2013 without following the procedure prescribed 2 under section 202 of Cr.P.C. He submits that the learned revisional court has affirmed the order of the learned trial court. He refers to contents of the enquiry witnesses brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit and submits that the enquiry witnesses have supported the case of the petitioner and in view of that both the orders may kindly be set aside and appropriate order may be passed. By way of placing section 202 of Cr.P.C. he submits that the procedure prescribed therein has not been followed by the learned court and in view of that injustice has been done to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the police investigated the matter and submitted final form in which the accused persons have not been sent up for trial. 6. Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 to 6 & 8 submits that the learned court has looked into the matter minutely and has considered the materials on record as well as the statement of the enquiry witnesses and thereafter has been pleased to dismiss the said complaint by order dated 30.07.2013 and the learned revisional court has further looked into the entire facts and passed the order. 7. It is an admitted position that F.I.R. was registered which was investigated by the police and final form has been submitted wherein the accused persons have not been sent up for trial pursuant to that the petitioner has filed protest petition which was considered by the learned trial court by order dated 30.07.2013 whereby the complaint has been dismissed. The learned Trial Court has found that death of the deceased has alleged to be occurred and no document has been brought on record including post mortem report. Even the doctor was not examined and the complainant and enquiry witnesses have not explained the cause of death or type of injury received on the body of the deceased. The learned court has further noted the fact that there are dispute between the parties since 2008 itself and considering all these aspects the learned court has been pleased to come to the conclusion that no case of cognizance is made out. 8. The learned revisional court has further examined the entire records including enquiry witnesses and found that all the witnesses were hearsay and the complainant has not explained the cause of death and type of injury received to the deceased and only statement was made that stomach was ruptured. The doctor was not examined and post mortem report was not brought on record and no document was produced to prove the cause of death. Thereafter the learned revisional court has been pleased to dismiss the revision petition. 9. Section 202 of Cr.P.C. speaks of postponement of issue of process. 3 False complaints are filed against the persons residing at far places in some of the cases and in view of that Sub-Section 1 of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. in order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, it was made obligatory upon the learned Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction postpone the issue of process against the accused and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused persons. Further if new facts which could not with reasonable division have been brought on record and in absence of that in a mechanical way merely because of the hearsay witnesses have supported the case, cognizance cannot be taken that is further well settled. In the case in hand, the learned trial court as well as learned revisional court have given cogent reason and have not entertained the complaint petition and passed order in view of that no case of interference is made out and accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 10. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, this petition is
Decision
dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/A.F.R.