Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 244 (JHR)

Parmu Manjhi v. State Of Jharkhand

2002-02-25

VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD

body2002
ORDER Vikramaditya Prasad, J. 1. Heard both sides. 2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 16.2.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmo at Tenughat, in connection with Complaint Case No. 6 of 2001, now T.R. No. 98 of 2001. 3. The short facts leading to this application are that son of Permu Manjhi was killed, his dead body was found and subsequently an FIR was lodged i.e. Chandrapura P.S. Case No. 82 of 2000 dated 19.12.2000 under Sections 302/34/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Three persons were named as accused, they are Rabat Mahato, his wife and Rabni Devi. It transpires that police after investigation submitted charge sheet in that case in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The complaint case No. 6 of 2001 filed in the Court A.C.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat by one Rekha Kumari alleging that the accused- persons of the complaint case, namely, Parmu Manjhi, wife of Parmu Manjhi, Ratan Manjhi, Shyam Lal Memrum and Teklal Mahto had individually and jointly abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The allegation was that the complainant had developed love affairs with the deceased Jagan Lal Hembrun. The accused-persons did not permit him to marry her and, therefore, Jagan Lal Hembrun committed suicide. It transpires that the complainant was examined as S.A. and 2 witnesses were examined on her behalf. Then the Court passed the order dated 16.2.2001 on the complaint petition summoning the accused-persons to face the trial, Hence, this criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed of quashing the order taking cognizance by the impugned order. 4. The situation is that two cases are there, one G.R. Case and another complaint case with respect to the death the same person. 5. The learned counsel for the State argued that both the cases may be amalgamated and it should be left for the Court below to decide the matter. It can be fairly conceded that two cases for the death of some person cannot be tried one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and another under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. It can be fairly conceded that two cases for the death of some person cannot be tried one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and another under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. In the circumstances, both the cases are directed to be amalgamated and in accordance with law at the time of framing of charge in G.R. Case an appropriate order will be passed in this regard by the learned trial Court at Bokaro. 7. In the meantime no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioners in connection with complaint case No. 6 of 2001 (T.R. No. 98 of 2001), pending in the Court of the learned A.C.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat. Both the cases will be heard after being amalgamated by a Court having jurisdiction at Bokaro. 8. With this direction and observation this application is disposed of.