Jharkhand High Court
Deoki Devi vs State Of Jharkhand on 18 April, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 367 of 2015
Deoki Devi, w/o Sri Ratho Sahu, resident of Village Sugnu, Upar Tola,
PO Sugnu, P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1 State of Jharkhand
2. Ripendar Sahu, s/o late Nageshwar Sahu, resident of Village Sugnu,
PO Sugnu, PS Sadar, District Ranchi
3. Sandeep Sahu, aged about 28 years, s/o Raju Sahu, resident of
Hanuman Mandir, Dumaradaga, PO Sugnu, and PS Sadar, District
Ranchi
4. Vikash Kumar, S/o Late Rajendra Kanshi @ Rajendra Sahu
5. Namita Devi, W/o Late Rajendra Kanshi @ Rajendra Sahu
Both Resident of Satpara Sundil, P.O. Kamre, P.S. Ratu, District-
Ranchi ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate
Mr. P.A.N. Roy, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P.
For Opposite Party No.4 & 5 : Ms. Kavita Kumari, Advocate
-----
07/18.04.2022. Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. P.A.N.
Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned counsel for
the State and Ms. Kavita Kumari, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 4
and 5.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal
proceeding including the order dated 07.12.2012 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with G.R.No.5636/2012 arising out
of Sadar P.S.Case No.283/12 whereby the learned court has taken
cognizance against the petitioner, pending in the court of learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi.
3. The case was instituted pursuant to the statement of the informant
alleging therein that on 10.10.12 at about 3 p.m Ox of Ratho Sahu was
coming at home of the informant again and again. It is further alleged in
the FIR that even when the informant was dragging his Ox from his house
but again Ox was coming in the house of the informant. It is further alleged
in the FIR that the informant with an intention to drag the Ox he had
caused injury on the Ox by stick (danda) which had caused injury near eyes
of the Ox and the Ox sustained slight injury on his eyes. It is further alleged
that the informant had given information about that injury to Ratho Sahu
then it has been alleged that wife of Ratho Sahu started abusing him. It is
alleged that on 11.10.12 at 11.30 a.m while the informant was taking out
milk of the cow at the house of Mahabir Sahu then in the meantime wife of
Ratho Sahu namely Deoki Devi came to the village Sugnu, Upar Tola and
assaulted on his head from back by stick (danda) which had caused injury
on the head of the informant and blood was oozing from his head and the
informant fell down. It is also alleged that she was threatening to kill him
and with the intervention of the villagers that dispute was solved by the
villagers and the informant was taken to the police station and accordingly
FIR was lodged and he requested to take legal action regarding this.
4. Pursuant to the objection raised by Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned counsel for
the State, the order dated 03.03.2022 was passed and in view of that order,
I.A. No.2618 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of wife and son of the
deceased informant, namely, Namita Devi amd Vikash Kanshi respectively.
5. Learned counsel Ms. Kavita Kumari has appeared on behalf of wife
and son of the deceased informant and she has filed Vakalatnama along
with I.A.2618 of 2022, which is meant for compromise.
6. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that earlier one joint compromise petition being I.A. No.1362 of
2022 was filed on behalf of the petitioner and opposite party no.2 wherein it
has been disclosed that the compromise has been made between the
parties. He further submits that in view of the objection raised by the
learned counsel for the State, further joint compromise petition being I.A.
No.2618 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner and wife and son
of the deceased informant. He also submits that in that I.A., the prayer is
also made for adding the wife and son of the deceased informant as
opposite party nos. 4 and 5 in this petition.
7. In view of the above submissions and considering that the I.A.
No.2618 of 2022 has been affidavited by Sudama Kumar Sahu, son of the
petitioner and wife and son of the deceased informant namely Namita Devi
and Vikash Kanshi respectively, the prayer with regard to adding the wife
and son of the deceased informant as opposite party nos. 4 and 5 are is
allowed.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall array the wife and son of the
deceased informant as opposite party nos. 4 and 5 in this petition, in course
of the day.
9. Mr. P.P.N.Roy, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the charge sheet has been submitted under sections 341, 323,
307 IPC. This petition has been filed and the compromise has been entered
into between the petitioner and the wife, son and brother of the deceased
informant. It has been submitted that the informant has died and that is
why the wife, son and brother of the deceased informant has entered into
the compromise. He further submits that the petitioner as well as the
deceased informant were close relative. He also submits that the case is
arising out of misunderstanding between the parties. He submits that there
was some quarrel between the parties with regard to domestic animal which
was entering into the area of the petitioner and in that quarrel one blow by
way of Lathi and there was no second blow on the head and the villagers
came there and they pacified the quarrel between the parties. He submits
that the injury was simple in nature and the injury report has been brought
on record by way of supplementary affidavit. In the injury report it has been
disclosed that no active bleeding was there and there is no external sign of
injury. He submits that the compromise has been entered into and for that,
I.As., being I.A. No.1362/2022 and I.A. No.2618 of 2022 have been filed.
10. Learned counsel Ms. Kavita Kumari submits that joint compromise
petitions being I.A. Nos. 1362 of 2022 and 2618 of 2020, wherein, it has
been stated that the compromise has been entered between the parties.
She further submits that she has got no objection if this petition is allowed.
11. Mr. Sahay the learned counsel appearing for the State submits that
there was blood on the head and in that view of the matter this is a case
against the society. To buttress his argument, he relied in the case of State
of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others, reported in (2019)
5 SCC 688.
12. In view of the above facts and considering the submissions of the
learned counsel appearing for the parties as well as considering that the
compromise has been reached between the parties and aforesaid two I.As.
have been filed to that effect and also considering the judgments rendered
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors.
Versus State of Punjab & Anr. , reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC
303, it would be futile exercise to allow the proceeding to go on in the
court below. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order
dated 07.12.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in
connection with G.R.No.5636/2012 arising out of Sadar P.S.Case No.283/12,
pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Ranchi is,
hereby, quashed.
13. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.
14. Consequently, I.A. No. 1362 of 2022 and I.A. No.2618 of 2022 stand
disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
