Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 919 (JHR)

Uttam Rajak v. State of Jharkhand

2022-07-26

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2022
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Tapas Roy, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Indu Shekhar Gupta, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceedings as well as order dated 25.01.2016 by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under sections 341, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur. 3. O.P. No. 2 has filed complaint alleging therein that on 07.05.2014 between 1.30 to 2.30 P.M. some of the accused persons had cut one neem tree from the land of which her husband Rajesh Rajak is the common ancestor of the recorded tenant and the petitioners have no relationship with the said recorded tenant. It is further alleged that on 25.05.2014 at about 10.00 A.M. the complainant protested against some of the petitioners regarding cutting of the neem tree, then all the petitioners started assaulting her along with her family members with fists, kicks and blow. It is further alleged that the petitioner no. 1 caught the hands of the complainant and disrobed her and outraged her modesty. It is further alleged that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 entered into room of the complainant and took away Rs. 7,000/- along with other articles. Thereafter on hulla being raised by the complainant, the petitioners fled away from there. 4. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for the same occurrence the petitioners have filed complaint case being P.C.R. Case No. 274 of 2014 against the O.P. No. 2 and her family members and after seven days of the occurrence, for the same allegation, the present complaint has been filed against the petitioners which is counter-blast case. He further submits that the petitioners and opposite party no. 2 are the descendants of one Guhi Rajak and the occurrence is with regard to cutting of branches of Neem tree in the premises of the petitioners. He further submits that earlier also one case was filed against some of the petitioners which was numbered as P.C.R. Case No. 365 of 2007, T.R. No. 621 of 2013 in which petitioners have been acquitted by the learned court below vide order dated 25.07.2013. 5. Mr. He further submits that earlier also one case was filed against some of the petitioners which was numbered as P.C.R. Case No. 365 of 2007, T.R. No. 621 of 2013 in which petitioners have been acquitted by the learned court below vide order dated 25.07.2013. 5. Mr. Indu Shekhar Gupta, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that witnesses have supported the case of prosecution and the learned court below has rightly taken cognizance against the petitioners. 6. Mr. Tapas Roy, learned counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 7. The Court has perused the materials available on record and finds that the petitioners have filed complaint for the occurrence of 7th May, 2014 at about 1.30. P.M. to 2.30 P.M against the O.P. No. 2 and others and the said case is still pending. O.P. No. 2 has filed P.C.R. Case No. 289 of 2014 against the petitioners which is subject matter of this petition. The occurrence of P.C.R. Case No. 289 of 2014 is also of 7th May, 2014 at about 1.30. P.M. to 2.30 P.M. This complaint petition has been filed by the O.P. No. 2 after seven days of filing of the complaint by the petitioners which suggests that this is afterthought case filed by the O.P. No.2. In earlier case, petitioners have been acquitted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur. 8. In the present case, learned court below has taken cognizance vide order dated 25.01.2016. Looking into cognizance order, it transpires that the learned court below has not disclosed what are the prima facie materials against the petitioners. However, for taking cognizance, a detailed order is not required to be passed but what are the materials against the petitioners are required to be disclosed which is lacking in the case in hand. 9. Accordingly, entire criminal proceedings as well as order dated 25.01.2016 by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under sections 341/323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur, are quashed. 10. This petition stands disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of. Interim order dated 04.12.2017 is vacated.