Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 348 (JHR)

Ayesha Khatoon v. State of Jharkhand

2015-03-09

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2015
ORDER : Heard Mr. A. K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 07.08.2012 passed by Sri A. K. Dubey, J.M. 1st class, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No. 1702 of 2010 by which the application filed under Section 245 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners have been rejected and the petitioners have further prayed for quashing the order dated 17.01.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge I, Jamshedpur in Criminal Revision No. 218 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the revision preferred by the petitioners was dismissed and the order dated 07.08.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur was sustained. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Talak has taken place in the year 2007, but the complaint case was instituted on 17.06.2010 i.e., after three years after the Talak and in such circumstances, no case under Section 498A and 406 of the I.P.C. is made out. It has further been submitted that petitioners are the mother-in-law and brothers-in-law of the complainant who reside at a separate place and in such view of the matter, the petitioner could not have been made an accused in the present case. It has also been submitted that no case under Section 406 and 498A of the I.P.C. is made out and in fact, the learned Revisional Court vide order dated 17.01.2014 did not properly consider the materials available on record and without giving any proper finding has dismissed the revision application. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, on the other hand, has submitted that the complaint petition reveals a prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 406, 420 & 504 of the I.P.C. and both the courts below have considered the application under Section 245 of Cr.P.C. and has rightly come to a conclusion that sufficient material exists for framing of charge against the accused persons. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, I find that the application for discharge preferred on behalf of the petitioners before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Jamshedpur was dismissed on 07.08.2012. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, I find that the application for discharge preferred on behalf of the petitioners before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Jamshedpur was dismissed on 07.08.2012. This order was under challenge in Criminal Revision No. 218 of 2012 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge I, Jamshedpur vide order dated 17.01.2014 was pleased to dismiss the said revision application. A perusal of the impugned order dated 17.01.2014 reveals that no finding has been given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge I, Jamshedpur while coming to the conclusion that the order dated 07.08.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Jamshedpur was sustainable. The arguments advanced on behalf of the parties have been noted down, but without any application of judicial mind, the learned Revisional Court has straightway come to a conclusion that there is no illegality or error in the order dated 07.08.2012. This in my view is totally a non-speaking order which is devoid of application of judicial mind on the part of the learned Revisional Court. In my view, therefore, this order cannot be sustained. Accordingly the order dated 17.01.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge I, Jamshedpur in Criminal Revision No. 218 of 2012 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Revisional Court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law by assigning reasons therein. 6. This application is allowed in the extent mentioned hereinabove. 7. However, it is made clear that this order will not prejudice the learned Revisional Court while passing a fresh order.