Jharkhand High Court
Sandhya Debya @ Sandhya Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand And Another on 18 May, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr.M.P. No. 1200 of 2010
----
Sandhya Debya @ Sandhya Devi, wife of late Niranjan Kumar Singh,
resident of Dhababad (Manjhalibad) P.O. and P.S. Sarath (Chitra), District
Deoghar .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Public Prosecutor
Mr. Tapas Roy, A.P.P
----
11/18.05.2023 This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal
proceeding including order dated 09.11.2005 in connection with Sarath
(Chitra) P.S.Case No.147 of 2005, G.R. No. 409 of 2005 in Sessions Case
No.319 of 2005, pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court-II, Deoghar.
2. Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the case was registered under section 302, 201
and 34 of the IPC however one of the main accused namely Sapan
Kumar Singh who has faced the trial has been acquitted by the judgment
dated 9.08.2010. He submits that there is no evidence against husband
of the deceased that is why he has been acquitted wherein present
petitioner is sister in law of the deceased and she is a lady. He submits
that in identical situation the Hon'ble Supreme Court has interfered in the
case of C.B.I. v. Akhilesh Singh, (2005) 1 SCC 478. On this ground,
he submits that entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.
3. Mr. Pankaj Kumar and Mr. Tapas Roy, the learned counsels
appearing on behalf of the respondent State opposed the prayer on the
ground that the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner
the discharge petition was filed and the materials were appreciated
thereafter that order has been passed. They submit that there are
instances of cases where after the acquittal in the separated trial, the
same witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. They submit
that to avoid opening of Pandora box of filing such petitions before the
learned court belatedly the prayer made by the petitioner may not be
allowed.
4. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the
parties the Court finds that main accused has been acquitted and it is
said that he was the husband of the deceased. The petitioner is a lady
and sister in law of the deceased.
5. In that view of the matter, this petition is being disposed of
with liberty to the petitioner who has been declared absconder to appear
before the learned court and file proper petition at appropriate stage.
6. This order is being passed with consent of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties. Since the main accused has been
acquitted and considering the judgment in the case of C.B.I. v.
Akhilesh Singh (supra), learned court will pass the proper order in view
of the above facts and considering the reasoned judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of "Satender Kumar Antil v. C.B.I. and
Others", reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 825.
7. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to appear all
coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.
8. Cr.M.P. No.1200 of 2010 stands disposed of.
9. Pending petition if any also stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/,
