Jharkhand High Court
Bidyut Chakravarty vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 936 of 2013
1. Bidyut Chakravarty, son of late Nirmal Chkarvarty.
2. Keya Chakravarty, wife of Bidyut Chakravarty.
3. Putul Chatterjee, D/o Bidyut Chakravarty.
All are residents of Chhatan Bagicha, P.O., P.S.
and Distt.-Lohardaga. ..... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.
------
07/ 01.11.2021 Heard Mr. Manoj Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for
quashing of order dated 09.10.2012, whereby cognizance under Section
306/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners and
further prayer has been made for quashing the entire criminal proceeding
against them, in connection with Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 56 of 2012
[G.R. No. 230 of 2012], pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Lohardaga.
3. The case was filed stating therein that Ranjit Chatterjee, the
informant submitted a written report on 14.06.2012 to the police and
alleged inter alia therein that his daughter Pinki Chatterjee was married
with Mritunjaya Chakravarty on 04.12.2011 according to Hindu Rites and
Rituals. It is also alleged that the in-laws of his daughter demanded
ornaments etc. from his daughter and tortured to her. It is further alleged
that he came to know that Mritunjaya Chatterjee had some illicit relation
with another lady. It is also alleged that on 14.06.2012 he was informed by
his relative that his daughter has closed herself in a room and then he
came there and found his daughter dead.
4. Mr. Manoj Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that in pursuance to the FIR, chargesheet has been
submitted only against the husband and no materials have been found
against the others, but without providing any reason, cognizance has been
taken against these petitioners by the Trial Court. He further submits that
the husband of the deceased has already been convicted and he has filed
the appeal against the judgment of conviction, which is pending before
this Ho'ble Court.
5. Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf
of the State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. He
further submits that it is well within the domain of the Magistrate to
proceed further if he comes to a conclusion that there is prima facie case
to proceed against the petitioners.
6. In the judgment rendered in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan
v. Union of India and Others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727, it has been
held that the proceeding can be quashed under section 482 of the Code and
it is held in paragraph no.12 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein
below:-
"12. The Court can, in exceptional cases,
exercise power under Section 482 CrPC for
quashing the cases to prevent misuse of
provisions on settled parameters, as already
observed while deciding the review petitions.
The legal position is clear, and no argument to
the contrary has been raised."
7. The law is well settled with regard to material under section
202 Cr.P.C which has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Swaraj Thackeray v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in
(2008) CriLJ 3780. Paragraph no.7 of the said judgment is quoted herein
below:-
"7. From the impugned order, I find that the
learned Magistrate after considering the
allegations made in the complaint petition and
the materials adduced during enquiry under
Section 202, Cr.P.C found prima-facie case
made out for commission of the offence under
section 153-A, 153-B and 504 of the Indian
Penal Code against the petitioner Swaraj
Thackeray @ Raj Thakeray and, thereafter
directed the complainant to file requisite for
issuance of process. At the stage of taking
cognizance a detailed order discussing the
evidence in detail is not required to be passed by
the Magistrate. The order taking cognizance but
should show that the Magistrate has applied his
mind before taking cognizance and from the
impugned order it appears that the Magistrate
after applying his mind has taken cognizance
and, therefore, it cannot be said that the
impugned order suffers from non-application of
mind."
8. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case
of Dy. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports v. Roshanlal Agarwal
and Others reported in (2003) 4 SCC 139 at paragraph no.9, which is
quoted below:-
"9. In determining the question whether any
process is to be issued or not, what the
Magistrate has to be satisfied is whether there is
sufficient ground for proceeding and not
whether there is sufficient ground for conviction.
Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting
the conviction, can be determined only at the
trial and not at the stage of inquiry. At the stage
of issuing the process to the accused, the
Magistrate is not required to record reasons.
This question was considered recently in U.P.
Pollution Control Board v. Mohan Meakins Ltd.
and after noticing the law laid down in Kanti
Bhadra Shah v. State of W.B. it was held as
follows: (SCC p. 749, para 6)" The legislature
has stressed the need to record reasons in
certain situations such as dismissal of a
complaint without issuing process. There is no
such legal requirement imposed on a Magistrate
for passing detailed order while issuing
summons. The process issued to accused cannot
be quashed merely on the ground that the
Magistrate had not passed a speaking order."
9. It is well settled that no detailed order is required for passing
any order for summoning the accused but in a case where Final Report has
already been submitted in favour of the accused and the Magistrate is
intending to proceed, he is required to make reasons of differing with the
Final Report, which has not been done in the case in hand. Putting the
criminal proceeding in motion is a serious thing as held in the case of
Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Others v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others,
reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that to set criminal proceeding in motion is a serious matter, which
requires to be looked into minutely.
10. Accordingly, the order dated 09.10.2012, whereby cognizance
under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the
petitioners, in connection with Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 56 of 2012 [G.R.
No. 230 of 2012], pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Lohardaga, is hereby, quashed. The matter is remitted back to
the concerned Court to pass the order afresh in accordance with law.
11. This criminal miscellaneous petition is, therefore, allowed and
disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
