Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2152 (JHR)

Satyendra Kumar Jha v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-12-13

ANANT BIJAY SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT Anant Bijay Singh, J. - Since, both the anticipatory bail applications arise out of one and the same case, hence they are being taken up together and are being disposed of by common order. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with C.P. Case No. 2505 of 2014 for the offence under sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears that under order dated 04.10.2017, report was called from the court concerned as to under what circumstances, order was passed on 19.07.2017 since as per report of Judge-in-Charge, Dhanbad, complainant died one year ago and also as to whether steps have been taken for substitution of the complainant or not and further directed to submit report to this court on or before 13.12.2017. 4. Further, the Judge-in-Charge, Dhanbad was directed to obtain an affidavit from the process server in support of his report and to submit to this Court before 13.12.2017. 5. It appears that affidavit of the process server has been received through Judge-in-Charge, Dhanbad in which process server has stated that he had searched for the respondent Sakaldeo Gour, but he found the land lord Nand Kishore Sharma present, who said that respondent was residing in his house as tenant, but died about one year ago. 6. Further letter of Sri Ranjeet Kumar Choudhary, learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Dhanbad contains the report submitted by Shikha Agrawal, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad dated 04.12.2017, the report reveals as under: "In this regard, I have to submit that no information regarding the death of the complainant has been filed before this court by the complainant''s lawyer and the attendance on behalf of the complainant is still being filed by the concerned counsel for the complainant and no petition has been filed for substitution by the complainant''s lawyer before this Court." 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Further, it has been submitted that no case under the alleged offences is made out against the petitioners. The petitioner-Satyendra Kumar Jha is a genuine power of attorney holder of accused No. 1, namely Bishundeo Prasad Singh in which capacity he transferred the land in favour of complainant, who has earlier filed another complaint being C.P. Case No. 2469 of 2014. 8. The petitioner-Satyendra Kumar Jha is a genuine power of attorney holder of accused No. 1, namely Bishundeo Prasad Singh in which capacity he transferred the land in favour of complainant, who has earlier filed another complaint being C.P. Case No. 2469 of 2014. 8. Learned A.P.P opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the above named petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court below within four weeks from the date of this order and in the event of their arrest or surrender the Court below shall enlarge them on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/( Rupees ten thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of Miss Shikha Agarwal, learned J.M, 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case No. 2505 of 2014, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 10. Further, from perusal of report dated 04.12.2017, it appears that learned Magistrate has not taken into consideration the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1860 of 2017 (arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) No. 4580 of 2017) dated 03.11.2017 "Chand Devi Daga & Ors. v. Manju K. Humatani & Ors. ": "A Bench of Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan observed that even in case of trial of summons case, it is not necessary or mandatory that after death of complainant, the complaint is to be rejected in exercise of the power under proviso to Section 256(1), the magistrate can proceed with the complaint. As the complaint alleged offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of the I.P.C, the court also observed that there is no provision in Chapter XIX "Trial of warrant cases by Magistrates'' that in the event of death of complainant, the complaint is to be rejected. The court referred to decisions in Jimmy Jahangir Madan v. Bolly Caiyappa Hindley (dead) by Lrs. (2004) 12 SCC 509 , and Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1967 SCC 983) to hold that heirs of complainant can continue the prosecution." 11. The aforesaid report dated 04.12.2017 submitted by learned Magistrate does not disclose whether the order was dictated by her or by the Bench Clerk in the routine manner. 12. (2004) 12 SCC 509 , and Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1967 SCC 983) to hold that heirs of complainant can continue the prosecution." 11. The aforesaid report dated 04.12.2017 submitted by learned Magistrate does not disclose whether the order was dictated by her or by the Bench Clerk in the routine manner. 12. Let a copy of this order along with a copy of the aforesaid judgment be sent to the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Dhanbad through Special Messenger at the cost of the Registry. The learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Dhanbad is directed that in the monthly meeting of the Judicial Officers, he would refer the aforesaid judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and impress upon the Judicial Officers to the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. The learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Dhanbad is also directed to impress upon the Judicial Officers that if he/she fails to take the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court on subsequent occasions, this Court will take serious view. 13. Let a copy of this order along with a copy of the aforesaid judgment be sent to learned Registrar General of this Court to place the same before the Hon''ble the Acting Chief Justice with request to send a copy of this order along with Report of the Trial Court (Principal District & Sessions Judge) and a copy of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court to the Director, Judicial Academy to formulate a Training Module based on the aforesaid judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court dealing with following point: "Recording of the orders and to deal with the situation where the complainant has died." 14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned trial court and to the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Dhanbad through FAX.