Vipul Divya vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9 Jhar

                                          1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      W.P.(Cr) 470 of 2021

Vipul Divya                                                    ......     Petitioner
                             Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Sanjeev Kumar (I.P.S.), Senior Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad
4. Vinay Prasad, Officer-in-Charge, Dhanbad Police Station, Dhanbad
5. Vikas Kumar Gupta, A.S.I. Dhanbad Police Station, Dhanbad
6. Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad
7. Bandana Sharma @ Bandana Prashant Sharma
8. Tushar Alok @ Tushar Prashant Sharma                           ...... Respondents

       CORAM:  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner
               :Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Senior Advocate
For the State  : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate
                      ............

2/Dated: 03/01/2022 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.

Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel, on instruction, submits that the

court fee has already been paid and surviving defects shall be removed by tomorrow.

In view of submission of the petitioner, this writ petition is being disposed

of. If the undertaking is not complied with, office shall place the same before the Bench.

Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr.

Sandeep Verma, learned counsel for the State.

This petition has been filed for protecting the life of the petitioner and for

direction upon the concerned respondent to lodge F.I.R against respondent nos. 7 & 8 on

the basis of complaint lodged by the petitioner.

Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that a

Will was executed by the father of the petitioner in favour of petitioner and for that Will

a case being Probate Case No. 1 of 2016 is pending before this Court in which Status Quo

has been passed but inspite of that order, caretaker of the petitioner has been assaulted

by the respondent nos. 7 and 8. He further submits that the petitioner is a practicing

lawyer of this Court and she happens to be in Dhanbad for arguing the case between

16.12.2021 to 22.12.2021 and the respondent nos. 7 & 8 tried to assault the petitioner.

He submits that A.S.I., Dhanbad Police Station tried to arrest the caretaker to help the

respondent nos. 7 & 8. He submits that the petitioner made complaints to the Officer-in-

Charge of Dhanbad Sadar Police Station, office of Senior Superintendent of Police,

Dhanbad on 18.12.2021, 19.12.2021 and 13.08.2021 annexed as Annexure-5, 5/1 and

5/2 of the writ petition. He further submits that inspite of the aforesaid complaints, till

date no F.I.R. has been lodged for the offences disclosed in the complaint.

Mr. Sandeep Verma, learned counsel for the State submits that this writ

petition may be disposed of with direction to the respondent no. 3 who is Senior

Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad to take action on the complaint filed by the petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid facts and considering that although the petitioner is

having alternative remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure and also considering that

inspite of Status Quo order passed by this Court in Probate Case No. 1 of 2016, the

alleged incident has happened and inspite of complaints filed by the petitioner, F.I.R. has

not been lodged which is against the mandate of judgments rendered by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of " Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh &

Others" reported in (2014 ) 2 SCC 1, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad-

Respondent No. 3 is directed to take cognizance of this fact and direct the concerned

police station to lodge F.I.R. on the basis of complaints filed by the petitioner. The

respondent no. 3 shall also enquire as to why the action has not been taken in spite of

complaints filed before the concerned police station. If the respondent no. 3 comes to the

conclusion that there is fault on the part of the police officer of the concerned police

station, a disciplinary action shall be taken against that police officer.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands

disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/