Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Devanand Oraon, S/o Dahru Oraon – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P. (Cr.) No. 139 of 2021
Decided on : 01-09-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 215 and 226 - Courts Act, 1971 - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 11, 12 and 15 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 – Criminal Procedural Code, 1973 – Section 174, 156, 157, 160, 173, 175, 190, 200, 228, 482, 438, 154(3), 156(3) - Delhi Special Police Establishment Act - Sections 4 and 6 - High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 - Rule 389 - Commission of a cognizable offence Examination of complaints – Abetment of suicide - - Criminal writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by father, who was posted as Sub Inspector in Mahila Thana in the district - Prayer in writ petition is made for direction to hand over entire investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on ground that police officers at different level are trying to hassle matter - Prayer is also made for direction to immediately stop investigation, who is kingpin and person behind murder of deceased as she was not abiding his dictate in managing various case which was pending before her - Whether he has committed any offence or is living as a law-abiding citizen - Whether prima facie case, on the basis of the record, to handover the investigation to CBI is made out or not - Whether they are subject to appeal or not – Held, On repeated request by the Court, affidavit has not been filed - In view of refusal of filing the affidavit, they have not left any option and compel Court to take suo motu action - Both have sought and bullied Court and behaved in the manner that Court felt that they are trying to threaten it - This has been done in open Court in the presence of senior and junior counsels of bar and as also in presence of Senior counsel and A.S.G.I. for the Union of India, who are the witnesses to entire incidents. It is necessary to see at outset that what implication and impression would such a conduct have on the senior and junior members of bar. The Court feels that majesty of the Court would be at risk, if such a conduct is not checked at stage of its budding. It has potential of carrying message across board that courts can be manhandled to desired ends of a litigator - This would ultimately result in lowering authority of institution and bears possibility of creating anarchy of a system on unfortunate date as has been submitted by A.S.G.I. appearing for respondent-CBI yesterday with heavy heart submitted that he is witness of what has happened on that day and how the Court has been humiliated. He further submitted that he has not seen this in the history of Jharkhand High Court - In view thereof, the Court has been humiliated and with heavy heart, it is said that this is humiliation of not an individual Judge, but the entire institution, if it is not dealt with iron hands it may see progress and will jeopardise the administration of justice - System in which the Judges can be bullied by the litigators to say that Justice will be done as will be matter of myth and will give rise to very nasty tendency of being more vocal in Court then being a learned – Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned G.A.-II and Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned G.A.-V appearing for the respondent-State, Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior counsel and Mr. Arunabh Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in I.A. No.4188 of 2021 and Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the respondent-CBI.
2. This criminal writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard on merit.
3. I.A. No.2449 of 2021 has been filed for intervention in the petition.
4. It has been stated in the interlocutory application that the applicant/intervenor is a social worker and she has knowledge of the case and that is why the applicant has filed this interlocutory application for intervention.
5. The respondent-State has vehemently opposed the said intervention application by filing reply to the said interlocutory application on the ground that this intervention petition is a politically motivated petition and the applicant is a member of a political party in opposition in the State of Jharkhand.
6. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain this intervention petition. Accordingly, I.A. No.2449 of 2021 stands dismissed.
7. The hearing of this case was resumed after cessation which was earlier sent to Hon'ble the Chief Justice on administrative side and thereafter this matter has been re-assigned to this Court. Yesterday, all the counsels had concluded their arguments. As few minutes were left in the Court time, as such this matter was adjourned for today.
8. This case is having a chequered history. On 17.06.2021, this matter was taken up and the State was directed to file the counter affidavit and on that day, direction was also issued to provide security to the parents of Late Rupa Tirkey and the matter was adjourned for 29.07.2021.
9. On 29.07.2021, time was again sought on behalf of the respondent- State, which was allowed and on that day, the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi and Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj were directed to transmit entire records of UD Case No.09/2021 registered on 03.05.2021 in a sealed cover. These facts have also been indicated in the order dated 13.08.2021.
10. The matter was again placed before this Court by the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice and the matter was listed on 26.08.2021. On that day, one interlocutory application was placed before this Court, numbered as I.A. No.4188 of 2021, which has been filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 11 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. On that day, when the Court asked the learned counsel for the respondent- State, namely, Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned G.A.-II and Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned G.A.-V whether they have filed any affidavit for apology or not, the reply was that the notice has not been issued as yet and the matter was adjourned for 31.08.2021.
11. When the matter was taken up on 31.08.2021, although notice was not issued, I.A. No.4188 of 2021 was opposed on behalf of Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Advocate General and Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General-II by Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior counsel and Mr. Arunabh Choudhary. This I.A. shall be considered by this Court in the later part of the judgment.
12. This criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the father of Late Rupa Tirkey, who was posted as Sub Inspector in Mahila Thana in the district of Sahebganj. The prayer in the writ petition is made for direction to hand over the entire investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on the ground that the police officers at different level
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
