Advocates:
['NIRANJAN SINGH', '', 'OM PRAKASH SINGH', 'BIRENDRA BURMAN APP']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Revision No. 1791 of 2018

1. Tultul Mukharjee @ Tultul Mishra Mukherjee aged about 54 years

wife of Sri Jayanta Mukherjee

2. Jayanta Mukharjee @ Jayanta Kumar Mukherjee @ Janyant

Mukherjee, aged about 56 years son of Sri Devi Prasad Mukharjee,

all (petitioners No. 1 to 2) residents of College More, Lakhipur

Math, P.O. P.S. and District-Burdwan, State:- West Bengal

…

…

Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Swapna Mishra, wife of Sarat Chandra Mishra, at present Resident

of 23A Friday Bazar, P.O. Sunday Bazar, P.S. Gandhi Nagar,

District Bokaro, State: Jharkhand …

… Opp Parties

---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Niranjan Singh, Advocate

For the State

: Mrs. Sweta Singh, Advocate

---

Through Video conferencing

8/11.03.2022

Heard Mr. Niranjan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the petitioner.

2.

Heard Mrs. Sweta Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the opposite party-state.

3.

Nobody appears on behalf of the opposite party No. 2.

4.

This criminal revision has been filed for quashing/setting aside

the order dated 06.10.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No. 154 of

2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1^st, Bermo at

Tenughat so far it relates to the present petitioners whereby the

petitioners have been arrayed as accused and the order under section

319 of Cr.P.C. refusing to array them as accused has been set-aside to

the extent it relates to the petitioners.

5.

The complainant had filed a petition before the learned trial

court under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. in order to make three persons

as accused in the case which was rejected vide order dated 06.10.2018

passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at

Tenughat in Complaint Case No. 205 of 2006 corresponding to T.R.

No. 1212 of 2006. The complainant filed Criminal Revision No. 154

of 2013 which was allowed with respect to the present two petitioners

who are sister-in-law and brother-in-law (husband of sister-in-law) of

the victim lady and dismissed with respect to the 3^rd proposed accused.

2

The aforesaid complaint case is said to be pending in the court of

learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat.

6.

Learned counsel submits that a petition under Section 319 of

the Cr. P.C. was filed before the learned trial court which was rejected

vide order dated 26.06.2013, against which the complainant filed Cr.

Revision No. 154 of 2013 which has been allowed to the extent it

relates to the present petitioners i.e. Tultul Mukherjee and Jayant

Mukherjee who are sister-in-law(nanad) and brother-in-law (nandoi)

respectively of the complainant wife.

7.

Learned counsel has submitted that the impugned order passed

in Cr. Revision No. 154 of 2013 is ex-facie perverse and the therefore

same is fit to be set aside so far it relates to the petitioners.

Learned counsel submits that so far as the petitioner No. 2 is

concerned, there is no iota of evidence as against him to rope him in

the criminal case. Learned counsel submits that pre-charge evidence

of the complainant has been filed along with the second

supplementary affidavit and has submitted that there is contradiction

in the pre-charge evidence of the brother of the complainant i.e.

Pradeep Kumar Goswami and Pratima Goswami, who is mother of the

complainant and no specific allegation has been made as per the

deposition so far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned.

8.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-state

on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the

impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is a well-

reasoned order considering the pre-charge evidence of the complaint

witnesses. She has in particular referred to t