Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1671 (JHR)

Ram Kishun Sonar v. State of Jharkhand

2018-08-01

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State. No one appears for the opposite party No. 2. 2. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 26.07.2005 passed in connection with Complaint Case No. 724 of 2003 (T.R. No. 1115 of 2004) by learned Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, whereby and whereunder, cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that no case u/s 306 I.P.C. is made against the petitioners. It has further been submitted that after the protest cum-complaint petition was dismissed u/s 203 Cr.P.C., learned revisional court without issuing notice to the petitioners straightaway set aside the order dismissing the protest-cum-complaint and remanded the matter back for conducting further enquiry pursuant to which cognizance was taken vide impugned order dated 26.07.2006. Learned counsel further submits that the learned revisional court did not give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners while remanding the matter back to the learned court below. It has also been submitted that so far as the impugned order is concerned it only mentions that prima facie an offence u/s 306 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner, but the same does not in any way consider the involvement of the petitioners while arriving at such conclusion. Learned counsel therefore submits that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 5. It appears that an F.I.R. being Dumri P.S. Case No. 38 of 2003 was instituted which ended in submission of final form and on being noticed, the informant had filed a protest petition which was numbered as Complaint-cum-Protest Petition No. 724 of 2003 which was treated as a complaint petition and which ultimately was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 18.10.2004. The informant being aggrieved had preferred a revision application being Criminal Revision No. 141 of 2004 which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih and while setting aside the order dated 18.10.2004, the matter was remanded back to the learned Magistrate to consider the evidence available on record and if necessary the complainant be given permission to adduce further evidence. Pursuant to the order of remand 03.03.2005, the impugned order dated 26.07.2005 has been passed by which cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable u/s 306 I.P.C. The revisional court order dated 03.03.2005 admittedly was passed without hearing the petitioners, as the same was confined only to an opportunity of hearing to the counsel for the informant as well as the learned APP. This was against the provisions of law enumerated u/s 398 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the learned revisional court was inclined to remand the matter back while setting aside the order dated 18.10.2004 he should have been given an opportunity to the petitioners to put forward their case. 6. In the case of P. Sundarranjan & others v. R. Vidhya Sekar reported in (2004) 13 SCC 472 in a similar issue the principles of natural justice has been followed while remanding the matter back to the learned court below. After the remand, it appears from the order dated 26.07.2005 which is the order impugned in the present application, the same has not considered as to whether the offence u/s 306 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner nor not. The entire discussion seems to have been revolved around the allegations and nothing has been indicated in the said order as to how the petitioners were involved in abating the commission of suicide by the deceased. The learned Magistrate has merely taken cognizance of the offence punishable u/s 306 I.P.C. without resorting to the reasons necessitating taking of cognizance u/s 306 I.P.C. 7. In such circumstances, therefore the impugned order dated 26.07.2005 passed in connection with Complaint Case No. 724 of 2003 (T.R. No. 1115 of 2004) by learned Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, whereby and whereunder, cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Judicial Magistrate to pass a fresh order after consideration of the materials available on record. 8. It is noted herein that the revisional order dated 03.03.2005 is not being interfered with since the petitioner has not challenged the said order in this application. 9. The aforesaid exercise should be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 10. Let the L.C.R. be sent back immediately to the court concerned. 9. The aforesaid exercise should be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 10. Let the L.C.R. be sent back immediately to the court concerned. Pending I.A. also stands disposed of.