Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1147 (JHR)

Meera Devi Kejriwal v. State of Jharkhand

2013-10-18

P.P.BHATT

body2013
ORDER 1. By the Court – Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to delete respondent Nos. 5 to 10 as they are not required to be impleaded at this juncture as according to the petitioner, her prayer is confined seeking directions against the respondent State Authorities for taking expeditious steps in completion of investigation and filing charge-sheet. 2. Permission is granted. 3. The names of respondent Nos. 5 to 10 be deleted at this juncture at the risk of the petitioner. 4. Necessary amendment be carried out during the course of the day. 5. The petitioner by way of the present writ petition has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ direction upon the respondent No. 4 to submit charge-sheet in Bariyatu (Gonda) P.S. Case No. 94 of 2012, G.R. No. 1930 of 2012 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC as per the provisions contained in Section 173 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent State, pointed out that during the course of the investigation and supervision of the case, prima facie, the allegations made against Purushottam Kejriwal, S/o late Shanker Lal Kejriwal and Pankaj Kejriwal S/o Sri Purushottam Kejriwal are found to be true under Sections 419, 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC, and therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 is required to take further steps for submitting the charge-sheet against these two accused. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the averments made in Para 16 of the counter-affidavit wherein it is stated that the Investigating Officer of the case has written to the petitioner for giving her sample signature, but in place of giving her signature, she has come before this Hon'ble Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to submit charge-sheet in this case. And in reply to the above averments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the letter date 3.2.2013 the respondent has not mentioned the specific date and the concerned Judicial Magistrate before whom the petitioner had to give his specimen signature. And in reply to the above averments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the letter date 3.2.2013 the respondent has not mentioned the specific date and the concerned Judicial Magistrate before whom the petitioner had to give his specimen signature. It is further stated that in this regard, the petitioner has already sent a letter date 25.2.2013 to the respondents and the copy of which is annexed as Annexure-4 to the rejoinder. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, the respondent No. 4 is directed to supply the petitioner the specific date preferably in the second week of November, 2013 and also supply the name of the concerned Judicial Magistrate before whom the petitioner shall remain present for her specimen signature. The respondents are also directed that after taking the signature of the petitioner they shall taken immediate step for obtaining the opinion of expert and shall take all endeavour to submit the charge-sheet at the earliest. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present writ petition is being disposed of. 10. Let the copy of the order be made available to the learned counsel for the respondent State Government. Petition disposed of.