SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Jhk) 514

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Md. Abid Hussain – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr.M.P. No. 2850 of 2013
Decided on : 04-05-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.

Proper evaluation of witness statements and evidence is crucial before taking cognizance in criminal proceedings.

Headnote:

Cognizance - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - PCR Case No.451 of 2011 - [IPC 1860, Section 306, Section 500, Section 506, Section 384, Section 385] - The court discussed the provisions of IPC including Section 306 (abetment of suicide), Section 500 (defamation), Section 506 (criminal intimidation), Section 384 (extortion), and Section 385 (putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion). The court emphasized the importance of witness statements and the need for proper evaluation of evidence before taking cognizance.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a petition to quash the order taking cognizance dated 16.09.2013 and the entire criminal proceedings in connection with PCR Case No.451 of 2011, alleging malicious prosecution.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the order taking cognizance was mechanical in nature as the witnesses did not support the case of the opposite party, and the petitioner was not found guilty in the enquiry conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer.

Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the order taking cognizance and the credibility of the witnesses' statements.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of support from witnesses for the opposite party's case and the findings of the enquiry conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer.

Final Decision: The order taking cognizance and the entire criminal proceedings in connection with PCR Case No.451 of 2011 were quashed.

JUDGMENT :

Notice upon opposite party no.2 has been effected. On 02.09.2022, nobody had appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 and that is how the case was adjourned with a view to provide one more opportunity by way of last indulgence to opposite party no.2 and it was observed that if opposite party no.2 will not appear on the next date, appropriate order shall be passed on the basis of materials available on record. Today when the matter is called out, nobody has responded on behalf of opposite party no.2 and that is why this matter is being heard in absence of opposite party no.2.

2. Heard Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the State.

3. This petition has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 16.09.2013 including the entire criminal proceedings in connection with PCR Case No.451 of 2011, pending in the court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka.

4. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the husband of the complainant was posted as Cooperative Extension Officer in Shikaripara Block and four LAMPS were allotted to him. It was further alleged that the Block Development Officer, Shikaripara (petitioner) sealed LAMPS godown in July, 2011 and later on he opened the seal. It was also alleged that the Block Development Officer, Shikaripara sealed LAMPS godown and for opening the seal, he demanded extortion money of Rs.2.00 lacs and threatened the husband of the complainant to implicate him in false case. It was further alleged that due to threatening given by the Block Development Officer, the husband of the complainant felt difficulty and he afraid from threatening and he proceeded on leave and came to home and narrated the entire matter to his wife-the complainant/opposite party no.2. It was also alleged that on 12.09.2011, the husband of the complainant received telephonic message and one Sitaram Soren, LAMPS worker told the husband of complainant that the Block Development Officer Shikaripara has told him to give Rs.2.00 lacs for opening of godown of LAMPS. It was further alleged that on 12.09.2011 the President of LAMPS, namely, Arbind Marandi told the husband of the complainant on telephone that the matter has been settled on consideration money of Rs.1.00 lacs and he told to give rupees one lac in lieu of rupees two lacs. It was also alleged that on receiving the said message, the husband of the complainant felt very uneasy and he suffered from severe pain whole night and in morning, he was admitted in Sadar Hospital, Deoghar, where he died on 13.09.2011. It was further alleged that the husband of the complainant died due to said threatening, as he was heartily weak.

5. Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of opposite party no.2 was working as Cooperative Extension Officer, Shikaripara Block and was in-charge of four LAMPS. In the month of July, godown of LAMPS was sealed by the petitioner and subsequently it was opened on the assurance of the husband of the complainant that he will not repeat his mistake in future, as committed by him. He further submits that the petitioner was on leave from 30.08.2011 to 03.09.2011 on account of Eid festival and leave for the said period was sanctioned by the competent authority. He also submits that after proceeding on leave, Mukhia of Shikaripara Panchayat alongwith others filed a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka in respect of irregularities committed in distribution of fertilizer and the said complaint was filed on 01.09.2011. He further submits that when the petitioner resume his duty, godown of LAMPS was opened on 10.09.2011 on persuasion in presence of Mukhia and other persons along with husband of opposite party no.2 and other employees of LAMPS. On 10.09.2011, the husband of opposite party no.2 had gone to Deoghar, stating that his wife is ill. He further submits that on 13.09.2011, the petiti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top