1. Smt. Mithu Dey @ Mithu Dey, W/o Sri Shantimoy Dey, R/o Jagannathpur, P.O v. Sudra, P.S. –Mosaboni, District –East Singhbhum, Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2619 of 2017 1. Smt. Mithu Dey @ Mithu Dey, W/o Sri Shantimoy Dey, R/o Jagannathpur, P.O. –Mohanpur, P.S. –Dhalbhumgarh, District –East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 2. Jiten Nath Ash @ Jitendra Nath Ash, S/o Late Jagabandha Ash, R/o Jagarnathpur, P.O. –Mohanpur, P.S. –Dhalbhumgarh, District –East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. .... Petitioners 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Moyna Bhakat, W/o Late Nalini Bhakat, R/o Kadamdihi, P.S. – Versus Sudra, P.S. –Mosaboni, District –East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
the record are sufficient to prima facie disclose commission of the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 06.01.2017, passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Ghatshila in Mosaboni P.S. Case No. 34 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 323 of 2016 is not sustainable in law and this is a fit case where the same be quashed and set aside. 9. Accordingly, the order dated 06.01.2017, passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Ghatshila in Mosaboni P.S. Case No. 34 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 323 of 2016 being not sustainable in law is quashed and set aside. 10. This criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 5th August, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 5 Cr.M.P. No.2619 of 2017
Arguments
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Birendra Burman, Advocate : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, Addl. P.P. : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate : Mrs. Vani Tiwary, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. 2. Heard the parties. 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 F.I.R. and entire criminal proceeding arising out of Mosaboni P.S. Case No. 34 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 323 of 2016 and the cognizance order dated 06.01.2017 by which the learned ACJM, Ghatshila has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code only, 1 Cr.M.P. No.2619 of 2017 against the petitioners on the basis of an F.I.R. and consequent upon submission of charge sheet. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner no.1 being the wife and the petitioner no.2 being the father-in-law of the accused no.1 namely Shantimay Dey of G.R. Case No. 77 of 2014 of the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatshila corresponding to Mosaboni P.S. Case No. 12 of 2014 instituted the said case alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the D.P. Act and in the said case, the said Shantimay Dey, his father namely Nripendra Nath Dey and his mother namely Debi Rani Dey have been held guilty for having committed the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code vide Judgment dated 19.09.2016. The opposite party no.2 who is widow has filed Complaint Case No. 208 of 2016 in the court of A.C.J.M., Ghatshila alleging that the petitioners are spreading rumor to cause damage to the reputation of the complainant that she is maintaining illicit relationship with the convict of G.R. Case No.77 of 2014 namely Shantimay Dey. The complainant of Complaint Case No. 208 of 2016 went to Mosaboni Police Station and reported the matter to police and asked for help but when police did not take any action, she filed the case. The complaint of the complainant was referred to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and on the basis of the same, Mosaboni P.S. Case No. 34 of 2016 was registered and police took up investigation of the case. After 2 Cr.M.P. No.2619 of 2017 completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the petitioners inter-alia committing offences punishable under Section 504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and on the basis of the case diary as it appeared to the learned ACJM, Ghatshila that prima facie case under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is made out inter-alia against the petitioners, hence the learned ACJM, Ghatshila took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered for issuance of summons. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which prohibits any court to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code except upon complaint made by the same person aggrieved by the offence and not upon police report, more so when police itself has not found commission of the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code to be true and when the A.C.J.M. differed from the police report and took cognizance for an offence which was not found to be true without any speaking order, the said order dated 06.01.2017, passed in Mosaboni P.S. Case No. 34 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 323 of 2016 is not sustainable in law. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand opposes the prayer for quashing the 3 Cr.M.P. No.2619 of 2017 F.I.R. and entire criminal proceeding arising out of Mosaboni P.S. Case No. 34 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 323 of 2016 and the cognizance order dated 06.01.2017 by which the learned ACJM, Ghatshila has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and submits that there is ample material in the record to constitute the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, reported in 2016 Cri. L.J. 3214 that since Section 199 Cr.P.C. envisages filing of a complaint in court in a case of criminal defamation neither any F.I.R. can be filed nor can any direction be issued under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 7. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that only material upon which cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken by the learned A.C.J.M. is the case diary. In view of the settled principle of law, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned A.C.J.M. has committed a grave illegality for taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of F.I.R. and consequent 4 Cr.M.P. No.2619 of 2017 submission of charge sheet for an offence other than the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code without any speaking order as to why the other offences are not made out and on what basis it came to the conclusion that the materials in