Jharkhand High Court
Tinku Kumar @ Tinku Mahaseth vs State Of Jharkhand on 15 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 75 of 2019
1. Tinku Kumar @ Tinku Mahaseth
2. Vikas Kumar............... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Shri Sanjay Kumar........... Opp. Party(s)
......
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen
Through:-Video Conferencing
......
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, A.P.P.
......
7/15.02.2021 The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding,
which has been held through video conferencing today at 11.00 A.M. They
have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.
Heard Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned counsel for the State.
The petitioners, in this application, have challenged the First
Information Report, registered as Mango P.S. Case No. 288 of 2017 (G.R.
No. 2705/2017), for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 498A/34
of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
FIR is absolutely vague. She submits that no details of torture have been
mentioned. She further submits that the marriage had taken place more
than seven years back and during that period there was no complaint by
the informant or the deceased (his daughter), which raises doubt about the
prosecution case. She further submits that only after the death of the
daughter of the informant, this case has been lodged. She submits that
there is no viscera report to suggest that the deceased had consumed
poison. She further submits that there is nothing on record to suggest that
Section 306 IPC is attracted in this case. She lastly submits that the
deceased died because of natural death.
Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer and submits that the case has
proceeded and several witnesses have already been examined in this case.
If an allegation in the FIR makes out a cognizable offence, the FIR
has to be registered. In that circumstance, the FIR cannot be quashed. The
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of
Haryana & Others- versus- Bhajan Lal & Others, reported in (1992) Suppl. 1 SCC 335",
clearly lays down the criteria of quashing the FIR. After going through the
said judgment, I am of the opinion that when a cognizable offence is made
out from bare perusal of the FIR, the FIR cannot be quashed.
Considering the aforesaid principle, I have gone through the FIR.
FIR suggests that the marriage of petitioner no. 1 alongwith the
informant's daughter had taken place in the year 2008 and a child was
also borne out of their wedlock. There is an allegation that the deceased
has been harassed and tortured in regular basis by the in-laws. There is
also allegation of assault. It is alleged that on 24.09.2017, the informant
was informed that his daughter is dead and on query, the petitioner no. 1
had stated that she died after consuming poison.
This allegation definitely makes out a cognizable offence, which
needs registering of an FIR. Thus, the FIR was registered. Thus, the
allegation made in the FIR and the defence taken by the petitioners needs
investigation. Thus, I find that this is not a fit case where the FIR can be
quashed. Further, I find that charge has already been framed in this case
and as per the report of the court below four witnesses have already been
examined.
Considering the aforesaid progress in the trial and also on merits
since a cognizable offence is made out, I am not inclined to quash the First
Information Report.
Thus, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands Dismissed.
(Ananda Sen, J)
Mukund/-cp.3
