Sachin Saxena @ Kushwaha Sachin ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 2296 Jhar

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                         Cr.M.P. No. 621 of 2021
                                     ------

Sachin Saxena @ Kushwaha Sachin Saxena, son of Umesh Kumar Dangi, aged about 20 years, resident of village and P.S. Harli, P.S. Barkagaon, District-Hazaribag ... .... .... Petitioner Versus

The State of Jharkhand ... .... Opposite Party

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha. Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Verma, A.P.P.

       For the Informant             : Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate


02/09.07.2021           Heard Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha,        learned counsel for the

       petitioner, Mr. Suraj Verma, learned counsel for the        State and Mr. J.N.

       Upadhyay, learned counsel for the informant.

2. This 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

3. The present petition has been filed for quashing of First

Information Report including investigation in connection with Muffasil

(Hazaribagh) P.S. Case No. 304 of 2020, for the offence under section 306 of

the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Hazaribag.

4. The informant has filed written report before the Officer-in-

Charge, Muffasil Police Station alleging therein that on 18.10.2020 his

daughter Naina Kumari committed suicide. She hanged herself with her scarf

in the fan in her room and when informant after breaking the door of the

room took her to the Central Hospital, Hazaribag, doctor declared her dead.

It is further alleged that before committing suicide Naina left her suicide

note wherein she stated that she was compelled to commit suicide

because of (i) Manjeet Kumar (ii) Ranjeet Kumar their (iii) mother and (iv)

Sachin Saxena. She had written in the suicide note that these persons

after hacking her Facebook Account uploaded obscene photographs on

16.09.2020 and she had also informed the matter to the police concerned

but police officials did not take any action on that.

It is also alleged that even before that her deceased daughter-

Naina Kumari has given the information regarding the hacking of her

Facebook Account on 16th September, 2020 to the officer-in-charge of the

Muffasil Police Station wherein she informed that Manjeet Kumar, Ranjeet

Kumar and Sachin Saxena are compelling her to commit suicide by

uploading obscene photographs in the Facebook and other Social Media and

threatening to throw the acid in her face.

It is also alleged that her deceased daughter Naina has

provided the contact number of all the persons to the police officials but

even after that all the above named persons have continuously started

giving threatening to her daughter for uploading the obscene photos in the

Facebook, helplessly on 18th October, 2020, Naina committed the suicide.

5. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that from perusal of F.I.R, prima facie, it appears that no case is

made out against the petitioner that is why he has filed this petition for

quashing of F.I.R. He submits that on the basis of suicide note, F.I.R. has

been lodged but in the suicide note the name of the petitioner is not there.

According to him, in the earlier case also, the name of the petitioner was

not there in the F.I.R. He submits that the name of the petitioner has been

included in the F.I.R. that is why F.I.R. is bad in law and the matter is

required to be interfered by this Court.

6. Mr. Suraj Verma, learned counsel for the State and Mr. J.N.

Upadhyay, learned counsel for the informant referred to F.I.R. and submit

that the name of the petitioner is there in the F.I.R. They submit that at this

stage, the Court may not roam and come to the conclusion that the case

is made out against the petitioner or not.

7. From perusal of F.I.R, it is crystal clear that name of the

petitioner has been indicated in the F.I.R. and deceased-Naina was

harassed by the present petitioner as a result of which she was in severe

mental stress, suicidal note has also been brought on record which indicates

that she was in "need of justice". On a mere perusal of Section 482

Cr.P.C., it is crystal clear that inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

can be invoked to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect

to any order under the Cr.P.C. or to prevent abuse of the process of

any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The power is

required to be used judiciously, consciously and sparingly. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court has examined Chapter XIV, Section 482 Cr.P.C. and

Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the case of the State of

Haryana v. Bhajanlal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, whereby,

guidelines for exercising such power has been laid down in paragraph

102 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below:

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report

or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate 7 Cr. M.P. No. 388 of 2021 within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

8. The present case does not fall under any of the categories as

mentioned in "Bhajanlal (supra). At this stage, the Court is only required to

see whether the F.I.R. discloses the cognizable offence or not. The case in

hand there is direct allegation against the petitioner and he is the named

accused in the F.I.R. and the aforesaid section is cognizable in nature. It is

well settled when the F.I.R. discloses prima facie commission of any

cognizable offence, High Court should stay its hand and allow the

investigating machinery to step into initiate the probe to unearth the crime

in accordance with the law.

9. In view of the aforesaid facts, no case of interference is made out.

Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Satyarthi/-