1. Santosh Yadav son of Late Gango Yadav. 2. Babita Kumari @ Babita Devi v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kunti Devi W/o Kisun Yadav, aged 42 years
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3472 of 2017 ------ 1. Santosh Yadav son of Late Gango Yadav. 2. Babita Kumari @ Babita Devi wife of Santosh Yadav. 3. Uday Yadav son of Mahabir Yadav. 4. Sangita Devi wife of Uday Yadav. 5. Sahodari Devi wife of Late Gango Yadav. Resident of Petitioner No.1, 2 and 5, village Bardo, P.O. & P.S. Domchanch, District Koderma. Petitioner No.3 and 4 resident of village Pihara P.O. & P.S. Satgawan, District Koderma … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kunti Devi W/o Kisun Yadav, aged 42 years, R/O Village Bardo, Opposite Parties P.S., P.O. Domchanch, District Koderma … ------ For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P. No.2
Legal Reasoning
Chief Judicial Magistrate found prima facie case for the said offences against the petitioners and ordered for issue of summons. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners/accused persons are the relatives of the informant. The petitioner No.5 filed Domchanch P.S. Case No.83 of 2011 involving the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the husband of the informant of the present case and the petitioner No.1 was examined on 18.03.2013 as the P.W.1. The P.W.2 was examined in that case on 16.07.2013. It is next submitted that while finding prima facie case against the petitioners, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, overlooked the facts and circumstances of the case and there is 2 Cr. M.P. No.3472 of 2017 malafide intention of the informant, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the entire criminal proceedings and submits that the undisputed fact remains that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of being members of an unlawful assembly, in prosecution of the common object of the assembly, have committed theft, caused simple hurt and wrongfully restrained the informant/complainant and her family members, hence, at this stage a mini trial cannot be conducted in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to ascertain the veracity of the contention of petitioners of false implication; which is basically the defence of the petitioner-accused persons of the case. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully 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 Uttar Pradesh & Another vs. Akhil Sharda & Others reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by the high court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the relevant portion of which reads as under :- “ Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the 3 Cr. M.P. No.3472 of 2017 stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered. (Emphasis supplied) 8. It is also a settled principle of law that the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure should not stifle a legitimate prosecution as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781. 9. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of being members of an unlawful assembly having committed theft and causing hurt as well as wrongfully restraining the informant and her family members. Merely because earlier a case was instituted by the petitioner No.5 about two years before the institution of the case or for that matter the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the witness in that case, is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding and undisputedly if the allegations made against the petitioners as made out in protest-cum-complaint petition, statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant are considered to be true in their entirety then the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 341 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. 10. Because of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to allow the prayer of the petitioners, as prayed for in this Cr.M.P. 11. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 09th of August, 2024 AFR/ Animesh 4 Cr. M.P. No.3472 of 2017
Arguments
: Ms. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, Addl.P.P. : None ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. Though notice has validly been served upon the opposite party No.2 yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party No.2 in spite of repeated calls. 3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of C. Case No.394/14 (Protest-cum-Complaint Petition) including the order taking cognizance dated 11.01.2017 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1 Cr. M.P. No.3472 of 2017 Koderma has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections147, 323, 341 & 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 28.07.2013 at about 5:00 pm, the petitioners along with the co-accused persons being the members of an unlawful assembly; in prosecution of the common object of the assembly, committed theft of necklace of the informant, wrist watch worth Rs.700/- and cash of Rs.1,50,000/- and caused hurt to the informant and her family members as well as wrongfully restrained them. The informant/complainant lodged F.I.R. vide Domchanch P.S. Case No.193 of 2013. Police after investigation of the case found the allegations against the petitioners to be not true and did not send up the petitioners for trial. A protest petition was filed by the informant which was registered as Protest-cum-Complaint Case No.394 of 2014. The statement on solemn affirmation of the petitioners as well as the statement of the enquiry witnesses was recorded and on the basis of the same, the learned