Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1025 (JHR)

Tadasha Mishra v. State of Jharkhand

2013-09-05

R.R.PRASAD

body2013
ORDER Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This application has been files for quashing of the order dated 15.6.2007 passed by the then chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Omanjhi P.S. Case No. 2 of 2006 (G.R. No. 69 of 2006) whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 217 and 221 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner, who at the relevant point of time was posted as Rural S.P. and also against the Investigation Officer, Officer-in-Charge and Dy. S.P. beside other persons, who have been alleged to have committed murder of Punam Toppo. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a case was lodged by Poonam Toppo alleging therein that while she was sitting under a tree, four accused persons namely, Hayat Ali Aansari, Firoj Ansari, Ramesh Sahu and Jakir Ansari put her on fire in order to kill her, who subsequently, succumbed to injury. When Punam Toppo had come before the Officer-in-Charge of Orianjhi Police Station to lodge the case, one Medical Officer, Primary Health, Center and B.D.O., Ormanjhi were sitting over there and in their presence statement was, given by Punam Toppo. Just before that Mairun Nisha had lodged a case against Punam Toppo wherein it has been alleged that Punam Toppo had assaulted her and that while Mairun Nisha along with her husband Jakir Ansari was in the police station, Punam Toppo came and lodged a case putting allegation against Jakir Ansari and other three persons that they had put her on fire, though Jakir Ansari was sitting right in front of the Officer-in-Charge of Orminjhi Police Station. On her statement, a case was registered under Sections 307 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code against four accused persons. While the matter was under investigation, a complaint was made before the then Chief Judicial Magistrate by the husband of Punam Toppo to the effect that the Investigating Officer has not been arresting the accused person nor he is recording the statement of B.D.O. or the Medical Officer, Ormanjhi nor the statement of the victim is being recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but the fact is that statements of the Officer-in-Charge as well as B.D.O. were recorded by the Investigating Officer. 4. 4. In course of investigation, the police found the allegation to be false as none of the persons did support the version of Punam Toppo and that nobody had seen the accused persons fleeing away from the place where occurrence is said to have taken place and thereby the Investigating Officer submitted final form whereby all the accused persons were exonerated from accusation. Thereupon a protest petition was filed by the husband of the deceased Punam Toppo upon which cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the aforesaid four persons. 5. At the same time, the Court also took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 217 and 221 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner as well as Investigating Officer, Dy. S.P and Officer-in-Charge of the police station on the premise that they disobeyed the order passed by the Court wherein the Court had passed an order for recording the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also for recording statements of other witnesses. 6. So far this petitioner is concerned, an order had been passed by the Court wherein the petitioner was asked to procure a report from the Officer-in-Charge, Ormanjhi Police Station and forwarded it to the Court with his own comment which order was complied with which would be evident from the statements made in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the counter-affidavit and that there has been absolutely no material showing involvement of this petitioner in the alleged offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby the Court did commit illegality in taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel further submits that those three persons, Dy. S.P, Officer-in-Charge and Investigating Officer had earlier moved to this Court when cognizance of the offence was taken against them. It was placed before the Court that neither there has been any evidence showing involvement of those persons in the alleged offence nor there was any disobedience of the order of the Court. The Court having found the statements to be correct, quashed the entire proceeding including the order taking cognizance against them. 8. It was placed before the Court that neither there has been any evidence showing involvement of those persons in the alleged offence nor there was any disobedience of the order of the Court. The Court having found the statements to be correct, quashed the entire proceeding including the order taking cognizance against them. 8. The case of the petitioner stands on much better footing as the petitioner had been asked to procure a report and to submit it which the petitioner did and thereby the question of committing any offence whatsoever does not arisie. 9. It does appear that earlier Dy. S.P., Officer-in-Charge of Ormanjhi Police Station and also Investigating Officer had moved to this Court when cognizance of the offences had been taken against them. This Court having found that there has been no material showing involvement of those persons in any manner in the offence of murder and that nothing is there to show that the order passed by this Court had been disobeyed, proceeding against them was quashed. 10. The case of the petitioner seems to be on far better footing as whatever direction was given by the Court that has been complied with which would be evident from the statements made in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the counter-affidavit. 11. In such situation, the Court can certainly be said to have committed, illegality in taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 221 and 217 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of Ormanjhi P.S. Case No. 2 of 2006 (G.R. No. 69 of 2006) including the order dated 15.6.2007 taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 221 and 217 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner is hereby quashed. 13. In the result, this application stands allowed. Application allowed.