Sarita Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 2946 Jhar

                                       1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      Cr.M.P. No. 3099 of 2017

Sarita Devi                                       ......   Petitioner
                           Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Balram Pandit
3. Sudama Devi
4. Abhimanyu Pandit
5. Madhusudan Pandit                              ......   Opposite Parties

                            ---------

CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                            ---------
For the Petitioners     :Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
                        Mr. Ajay Kr. Sah, Advocate
For the State            :Mr. Veervijay Pradhan, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2      : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate

For the O.P. Nos. 3 to 5: Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate

09/Dated: 02/08/2022 Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, assisted by Mr. Ajay Sah, learned counsel for

the petitioner, Mr. Veervijay Pradhan, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Lalit Yadav,

learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel for

the O.P. Nos. 3 to 5.

This petition has been filed for quashing of order taking cognizance

dated 11.07.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad in

connection with Jogta P.S. Case No. 47 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 4280 of

2016 whereby cognizance under sections 323, 506, 498(A)/34 I.P.C. has been

taken only against O.P. No. 2-husband, pending in the Court of learned Judicial

Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is arising out

of second marriage of the informant as earlier first husband of the informant has

died. Thereafter second marriage took place. He further submits that

petitioner/complainant has filed complaint before the learned court which was

sent under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for institution of F.I.R. pursuant thereto F.I.R. has

been registered and police investigated the case and submitted chargehseet

against O.P. No.2 and rest of the accused persons i.e. O.P. Nos. 3 to 5 have not

been sent up for trial. He further submits that the learned court without issuing

notice to the informant accepted final form as against the O.P. Nos. 3 to 5 and

has taken cognizance only against O.P. No. 2 and proceeding against rest of the

accused persons has been dropped. He further submits that once chargesheet is

submitted it was incumbent upon the learned court to issue notice upon the

informant and thereafter pass cognizance order. He relied on judgment in the case

of "Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and Another" reported in

(1985) 2 SCC 537 (para 4).

Relying on aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that against the mandate of law learned court has taken cognizance.

On the other hand, Mr. Lalit Yadav and Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay,

learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and O.P. Nos. 3 to 5 submit that learned court

was having three options and one of the option has been accepted and rightly

been taken cognizance.

Learned counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in the

cognizance order.

In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties the

Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that learned court

referred the complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The police investigated the

matter and submitted chargesheet against the husband and rest of the accused

persons (previous in-laws) have not been sent up for trial. In the case of

Bhagwant Singh (supra), relied by learned counsel for the petitioner, it has

been held that once chargesheet is submitted Magistrate has got three options:

(i) he may accept the report and take cognizance of the offence and issue process

or (ii) he may disagree with the report and drop the proceeding or (iii) he may

direct further investigation under subsection (3) of Section 156 and require the

police to make a further report and if the chargesheet is not submitted he may

notice the accused persons.

The learned court has chosen first option and has accepted the final form

and has taken cognizance. There is no illegality in the impugned order. Assuming

the contention of the petitioner correct, there are provision under Cr.P.C. for

further calling of any person if illegality is found in course of trial.

This petition is dismissed.

Since the Court has dismissed the case on merit, I.A. No.11026/2019 is also

dismissed.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/