Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1242 (JHR)

Dolly @ Jyoti Kumari v. State of Jharkhand

2006-10-10

D.K.SINHA

body2006
Order Mr. Ashutosh Anand learned counsel appearing for the petitioner No.1 submitted that he has filed vakalatnama duly executed by the petitioner, No.1, Dolly @ Jyoti Kumari, whereas other three petitioners have been represented by Mr. P.C. Tripathy, Advocate, who is not appearing today. 2. In the present case, the prayer has been made for setting aside the cognizance order dated 30.3.2005 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence was taken under sections 498A/406/494/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The main contention of the petitioners is that they had filed a discharge petition before Sri S.P. Thakur Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but without disposing of the same, charge has been framed against the petitioners against whom there is no prima facie material in the case diary. 4. The learned counsel submitted that initially no charge-sheet was submitted against these petitioners but name of the petitioners appeared in the supplementary charge-sheet which was filed under section 173(8) of the, Code of Criminal Procedure without positive material against them. The petitioner No.1 is the daughter of the sister of the husband of the opposite party No.2 (wife-complainant) whereas the other petitioners are the married sisters of the husband of the opposite party No.2. The learned counsel further submitted that they are not at all concerned with the family affairs of the principal accused i.e. husband as well as the complainant-wife. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 submitted that on the assurance of the parties they have entered into a compromise. Father-in-law of the complainant-opposite party No. 2 was admitted to bail. The learned counsel further submitted that on the protest petition being filed on behalf of the complainant, after submission of the first charge-sheet the police investigated the matter and after finding certain materials the police filed supplementary charge-sheet under section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioners. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, though I find that the prayer has been made for setting aside the cognizance order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, but at the same time I find that the Judicial Magistrate failed to take into consideration the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioners. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, though I find that the prayer has been made for setting aside the cognizance order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, but at the same time I find that the Judicial Magistrate failed to take into consideration the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that after framing of the charge on 14.2.2006 against the petitioners and others no witness has been produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution till date as per his information, in spite of seven dates being given by the trial court. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I set aside the charge framed against the petitioners in Kundwadih P.S. Case No.1 09 of 2003 (G.R. Case No. 3557 of 2003) with the direction to the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad to dispose of the petition of the petitioners for their discharge dated 23.7.2005 filed under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to proceed thereafter in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is disposed of.