Jharkhand High Court
Karishma Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No. 151 of 2021
Karishma Kumari, aged about 19 years, wife of Pawan Kumar Yadav,
daughter of Sunil Das, resident of Vill- Baswariya, P.O. Kasathi, P.S.
Devipur, Dist.- Deoghar ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Superintendent of Police, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. & District- Deoghar
3. Officer-in-Charge, Devipur, P.O. & P.S. Devipur, District- Deoghar
4. Pawan Kumar Yadav, aged about 21 years, Son of Angrage Yadav @
Mahendra Yadav
5. Angrage Yadav @ Mahendra Yadav, son of Bholi Yadav
6. Anita Devi, Wife of Angrage Yadav @ Mahendra Yadav
7. Bhim Yadav, Son of Bholi Yadav
8. Renu Devi, Wife of Bhim Yadav
9. Ramesh Yadav @ Manager, Son of Bholi Yadav
10. Sanjay Yadav, Son of Angrage Yadav @ Mahendra Yadav
All resident of vill.- Baswariya, P.O. Baswariya, P.S. Devipur, Dist.-
Deoghar (Jharkhand) ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Mihir Kunal Ekka, A.C. to S.C.-V
-----
04/05.08.2021. Heard Mr. Pran Pranay, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Mihir Kunal Ekka, learned counsel for the respondent-State.
This criminal writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing
in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation
arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained
about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter
has been heard.
The prayer in this criminal writ petition has been made for direction
upon the concerned respondents to take action against respondent nos. 4
to 10 in connection with Devipur P.S. Case No.146/2020, corresponding to
S.T./S.C. Case No.90/2020, which has been registered under Sections 341,
323, 354, 498-A, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 3(1)(r)&(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
It is statutory obligation and duty of police to investigate into crime
and courts normally ought not to interfere and guide investigating agency
as to what manner investigation has to proceed. The jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with
caution, only where such exercise is justified by the test laid down in
various judgments.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
already filed representations, contained in Annexure-2 and 2/1 of this writ
petition.
However without entering into the merits of the case, the petitioner is
at liberty to file a fresh representation before the Superintendent of Police,
Deoghar.
Accordingly, this criminal writ petition stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
