IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Alok Mishra – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. M.P. No. 791 of 2012
Decided On : 01-05-2023
Criminal Harassment - Indian Penal Code - Sections 341, 323, 354, 504, 509 - The court quashed the order and criminal proceedings against the petitioner, citing lack of prima facie evidence and failure to justify the reasons for differing with the charge-sheet.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a local Editor, was accused of mentally and physically harassing a Reporter working for a newspaper. The petitioner filed a petition to quash the order and criminal proceedings against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State Women Commission had exonerated the petitioner and found the allegations made by the reporter to be untrue. The court also noted that the order taking cognizance lacked disclosure of prima facie materials and reasons for differing with the charge-sheet.
Issues: The issues revolved around the allegations of harassment and the justification for taking cognizance against the petitioner despite the charge-sheet being submitted in his favor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of disclosing prima facie materials and reasons for taking cognizance, especially when the charge-sheet is submitted in favor of the accused.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order dated 14.07.2011 and the entire criminal proceeding pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Navneet Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.07.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No. 641/2010 and also for quashing the entire criminal proceeding, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur.
3. The FIR was lodged by opposite party no. 2 before the Officer in Charge Olidih Police Station, Jamshedpur being Mango (Olidih) P.S. Case No. 33/2009 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 354, 504 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code alleging therein that opposite party no. 2 was working as Reporter in Dainik Jagran Newspaper from 2003. It was further alleged that the local Editor (petitioner) was mentally harassing. It was also alleged that since 5th January, no work was given to her as a result of which she was mentally harassed. On 30.01.2009, opposite party no. 2 was not allowed the print news and she was stopped to operate the computer. She was rebuked by the local Editor and was drove out of the cabin and she was mentally and physically tortured.
4. Mr. Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 341, 323, 354, 504 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that opposite party no. 2 has earlier moved before this Court in W.P. (Cr.) No. 303 of 2009 for expediting the investigation and during the pendency of that petition, charge-sheet was submitted on 23.12.2009 after proper enquiry, whereby, the petitioner has not been sent up for trial and in that view of the matter, the said writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner. He also submits that opposite party no. 2 complained before the State Women Commission, Jharkhand and on her complaint, Complaint Case No. 914 was registered before the Commission. He submits that the State Women Commission, Jharkhand has also found that the case is false against the petitioner and he has been exonerated. He submits that on the protest petition, the learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioner. He also submits that the entire order-sheet has been brought on record by way of filing I.A. No. 10318 of 2022 stating therein that even the complainant had not appeared before the learned court where the case is pending.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Sah, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 submits that processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have already been issued against the petitioner in the year 2019 itself. He submits that there is allegation of threatening and that is why the learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioner on the protest petition filed by opposite party no. 2.
6. Mr. Sahay, learned counsel for the State submits that charge-sheet has been submitted and thereafter the learned court has taken cognizance on the protest petition.
7. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the contents of the FIR as well as the order taking cognizance including the order passed by the State Women Commission, Jharkhand. From the contents of the FIR, it transpires that the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 were working in newspaper namely Dainik Jagran and the petitioner is said to be Editor posted at Jamshedpur of the said newspaper and opposite party no. 2 was working there as Reporter. The State Women Commission, Jharkhand has found the allegations made by opposite party no. 2 as untrue as she has stated that her right hand was fractured and the State Women Commission found that she left the premises by riding a Scooty by herself. On the point of salary, the Management has disclosed before the State Women Commission that she was not coming to work and once she will join, the salary will be paid. T
The importance of disclosing prima facie materials and reasons for taking cognizance, especially when the charge-sheet is submitted in favor of the accused.
The court's decision reaffirms the principle that the High Court may exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings only in cases of malicious prosecution, based on the fa....
High Court under Section 482 CrPC cannot quash proceedings where specific allegations of cruelty, dowry demands, assaults and harassment prima facie constitute offences; no evidence appreciation at t....
Malicious filing of a complaint case and false denial of relationship can lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings.
The court established that malicious prosecution can lead to quashing of proceedings under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and that the High Court has the authority to intervene in such cas....
The court upheld the cognizance of the Trial Court, finding sufficient prima facie evidence of assault and wrongful restraint against the petitioner, a police official.
The court established that a magistrate must conduct an inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. before issuing process against an accused, particularly when the accused resides outside the jurisdict....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.