The High Court of Jharkhand quashed proceedings against the petitioner under sections 341/342/406/506/119/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4/5 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and held that the police had exonerated the petitioner after investigation and putting a criminal law in motion by way of examining only one or two enquiry witnesses is deprecated.
Brief Facts:
The present petition was filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner under offences under Section 341/342/406/506/119/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4/5 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that initially the complainant had filed the complaint petition against the petitioner and the other co-accused which was sent by the court under Section 156(3) CrPC for registration of FIR and the investigation pursuant to that was registered under offences under Section 341/342/406/506/119/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4/5 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the petitioner and the co-accused and further contended that the police had submitted the final form whereby the petitioner was not sent up for trial. It was further submitted that the case was falsely filed against the petitioner.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the police had submitted a charge sheet whereby the petitioner was not sent up for a trial, however, the learned Court has taken cognizance of the protest petition and further submitted that the court has rightly taken cognizance against the petitioner and there is no illegality in the impugned order.
Observations of the court:
The court referred to the submissions of the counsels and the solemn affirmation of the complainant and stated that it was clear that for a quarter that was allotted to his mother-in-law, an application was moved by the complainant for allotting the said quarter in his favour and somehow that quarter was not allotted to the complainant and, therefore, the present complaint case has been filed.
Further, it was stated that the police had exonerated the petitioner after investigation, however, on the protest petition, the learned Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner. The court then referred to the judgment in Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others wherein it was held that putting a criminal law in motion by way of examining only one or two enquiry witnesses is deprecated.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and quashed the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
Case Title: Somen Chatterjee vs State of Jharkhand and anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Case No.: Cr.M.P. No. 2247 of 2013
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Rishi Pallava
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Achinto Sena and Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
