Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 659 (JHR)

Vandana Kumari @ Sweety v. State of Jharkhand

2014-06-26

H.C.MISHRA

body2014
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State as also learned counsel for the complainant-O.P. No. 2. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.7.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in Cr. Rev. No. 70 of 2013, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the revision filed by the complainant against the dismissal of the complaint petition filed by him, directing the Trial Court below to pass the order afresh after taking into consideration the materials available on record, in accordance with law. However, it is apparent from the impugned order that the material, which was directed to be looked into, was never produced before the Trial Court, and was produced for the first time in the Revisional Court below. 3. The facts of this lie in a short compass. The complainant-O.P. No. 2 filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, which was numbered as C/1 Case No. 1590 of 2012. The said complaint was filed against the sister-in-law of the complainant (i.e., the present petitioner), and the Editor of ‘Dainik Jagran’, a Hindi Daily newspaper, in which the complainant had made allegations that the sister-in-law of the complainant being an unmarried woman, always wanted undue attention from the complainant, for which she made indecent advancements several times for which the complainant scolded her. Being aggrieved by the action of the complainant, one day the accused petitioner came to the house of the complainant along with the police officer of Sunder Nagar Police Station, making complaint against the complainant that he was torturing his wife, but on inquiry police officer found the allegations false and baseless and he rebuked her and warned her. Again on 22.4.2012, a news item was published in ‘Dainik Jagran’ a Hindi Daily newspaper published from Mango Jamshedpur, from which the complainant learnt that she had again made false, wild and malicious allegations before the Women Helpline against the complainant of torturing his wife. It is stated that upon getting said news report, the wife of the complainant went to the police station and gave a letter in writing, denying and refuting the false allegations made by her sister. It is stated that upon getting said news report, the wife of the complainant went to the police station and gave a letter in writing, denying and refuting the false allegations made by her sister. Thereafter the present complaint petition was filed by the petitioner, against his sister-in-law and the Editor of ‘Dainik Jagran’, for the alleged offences under Sections 499, 500, 501, 502, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. In the penultimate Paragraph of the complaint it is stated as follows:- “14. That, by the said acts of making, printing, publishing, distributing said imputations against the complainant, the accused persons have committed grave wrong amounting to offence under Sections 499/500/501/502 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.” 4. It appears from the record that the statement of the complainant was recorded on solemn affirmationand the statements of the witnesses on behalf of the complainant were also recorded in the inquiry stage, including the statement of the wife of the complainant. Subsequently the wife of the complainant withdrew her statement, stating that she had given her statement in the Court under pressure. Nothing was brought on record in the learned Trial Court below to show that any news item was published in the daily newspaper ‘Dainik Jagaran’ and accordingly, upon considering the statements of the witnesses in detail, the learned Trial Court below, by order dated 12.3.2013 passed in C/1 Case No. 1590 of 2012, dismissed the complaint petition after due inquiry. 5. It appears that being aggrieved by the said order, the complainant filed a revision before the Revisional Court below, which was numbered as Cr. Rev. No. 70 of 2013, the said revision was allowed by order dated 15.7.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur. The order shows that during course of hearing of the revision application, the paper cutting of the newspaper had been filed and on the said basis, it was directed that it would be better to appreciate the material on record afresh by the learned Trial Court and hence the order dismissing the complaint was set aside and the learned Trial Court below was directed to consider the materials available on record and pass the order afresh in accordance with law. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, the learned Trial Court had dismissed the complainant petition after due inquiry, specifically finding that no newspaper cutting was produced in the Court below. It is submitted that the Revisional Court below passed the impugned order without giving any notice to the petitioner and that too, on the basis of the fresh material, which could not be taken into consideration by the Revisional Court below. 7. Learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the complainant-O.P. No. 2, on the other hand, have opposed the prayer. It is submitted by learned counsel for the complainant-O.P. No. 2 that in the learned Trial Court below, the newspaper cutting could not be produced inadvertently, and it was produced by the complainant in the Revisional Court below. 8. After having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that the learned Trial Court below has passed the reasoned order, discussing the evidence on record and specifically finding that no newspaper cutting was produced before it. Taking into consideration the statement of the complainant in Para 14 of the complaint petition as quoted above, it is apparent that the entire allegation against the petitioner rests mainly on the newspaper report and that very newspaper was not produced by the complainant before the Trial Court below. Accordingly, the Trial Court below dismissed the complaint petition filed by the complainant. 9. The legality or otherwise of a judicial order passed by a Court can be judged only on the basis of the materials, which were made available to the Court. If the material was not made available to the Court, the order passed by the Court below cannot be set aside stating that a particular material was not taken into consideration. The newspaper item, which was not before the Court, was in the present case, the cause of action to the complaint and the said very material was not produced before the Court below, in absence of the which, I am of the considered view, the Trial Court below rightly dismissed the complaint petition after due inquiry. The said order suffers from no illegality and could not have been interfered with by the Revisional Court below. 10. The said order suffers from no illegality and could not have been interfered with by the Revisional Court below. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.7.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in Cr. Rev. No. 70 of 2013 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same, is hereby, set aside. 11. This application is accordingly, allowed.