Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 597 (JHR)

Alok Mishra v. State of Jharkhand

2023-05-01

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2023
JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Navneet Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.07.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No. 641/2010 and also for quashing the entire criminal proceeding, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur. 3. The FIR was lodged by opposite party no. 2 before the Officer in Charge Olidih Police Station, Jamshedpur being Mango (Olidih) P.S. Case No. 33/2009 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 354, 504 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code alleging therein that opposite party no. 2 was working as Reporter in Dainik Jagran Newspaper from 2003. It was further alleged that the local Editor (petitioner) was mentally harassing. It was also alleged that since 5th January, no work was given to her as a result of which she was mentally harassed. On 30.01.2009, opposite party no. 2 was not allowed the print news and she was stopped to operate the computer. She was rebuked by the local Editor and was drove out of the cabin and she was mentally and physically tortured. 4. Mr. Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 341, 323, 354, 504 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that opposite party no. 2 has earlier moved before this Court in W.P. (Cr.) No. 303 of 2009 for expediting the investigation and during the pendency of that petition, charge-sheet was submitted on 23.12.2009 after proper enquiry, whereby, the petitioner has not been sent up for trial and in that view of the matter, the said writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner. He also submits that opposite party no. 2 complained before the State Women Commission, Jharkhand and on her complaint, Complaint Case No. 914 was registered before the Commission. He submits that the State Women Commission, Jharkhand has also found that the case is false against the petitioner and he has been exonerated. He submits that on the protest petition, the learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioner. He submits that the State Women Commission, Jharkhand has also found that the case is false against the petitioner and he has been exonerated. He submits that on the protest petition, the learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioner. He also submits that the entire order-sheet has been brought on record by way of filing I.A. No. 10318 of 2022 stating therein that even the complainant had not appeared before the learned court where the case is pending. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Sah, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 submits that processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have already been issued against the petitioner in the year 2019 itself. He submits that there is allegation of threatening and that is why the learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioner on the protest petition filed by opposite party no. 2. 6. Mr. Sahay, learned counsel for the State submits that charge-sheet has been submitted and thereafter the learned court has taken cognizance on the protest petition. 7. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the contents of the FIR as well as the order taking cognizance including the order passed by the State Women Commission, Jharkhand. From the contents of the FIR, it transpires that the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 were working in newspaper namely Dainik Jagran and the petitioner is said to be Editor posted at Jamshedpur of the said newspaper and opposite party no. 2 was working there as Reporter. The State Women Commission, Jharkhand has found the allegations made by opposite party no. 2 as untrue as she has stated that her right hand was fractured and the State Women Commission found that she left the premises by riding a Scooty by herself. On the point of salary, the Management has disclosed before the State Women Commission that she was not coming to work and once she will join, the salary will be paid. The petitioner and opposite party no. 2 were transferred to Patna headquarter and the Management informed the State Women Commission that once opposite party no. 2 will join at headquarter, she will be further transferred to another place and there is no question of working together. These findings were recorded by the State Women Commission considering that opposite party no. The petitioner and opposite party no. 2 were transferred to Patna headquarter and the Management informed the State Women Commission that once opposite party no. 2 will join at headquarter, she will be further transferred to another place and there is no question of working together. These findings were recorded by the State Women Commission considering that opposite party no. 2 has not produced any witness to justify the allegation. The Court finds that on the protest petition, the learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioner and there is no reason of differing with the charge-sheet. 8. Once the charge-sheet has been submitted, the learned court is having four options, which are as under: “(i) He may agree with the conclusion of the police and accept the final report and drop the proceeding. (ii) He may take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and issue process straightway to the accused without being bound by the conclusion of the investigating agency, where he is satisfied that upon the facts discovered by the police, there is sufficient ground to proceed. (iii) He may order for further investigation if he is satisfied that the investigation was made in perfunctory manner. (iv) He may without issuing process and dropping the proceedings under Sections 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. upon the original complaint or protest petition treating the same as complaint and proceed to act under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter whether complaint should be dismissed or process should be issued.” 9. In the case in hand, the learned court has justified to proceed in terms of option No. (iv) and he has taken the cognizance, however the learned court has not recorded the reason of differing with the charge-sheet and also what materials are found to take cognizance against the petitioner, have not been disclosed. Once charge-sheet is submitted in favour of the petitioner, at least prima facie materials are required to be disclosed in the order taking cognizance, which is lacking in the case in hand. 10. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the order dated 14.07.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No. 641/2010 and the entire criminal proceeding, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur is quashed. 11. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of. 12. Pending I.A. if any, are disposed of. 13. 11. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of. 12. Pending I.A. if any, are disposed of. 13. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, stands vacated.