Jharkhand High Court
Anil Soren vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 November, 2023
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1 Cr.M.P. No. 2217 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2217 of 2014
Anil Soren ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rashmeri Kisku ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Binit Chandra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, A.P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : None
-----
11/29.11.2023 Vide order dated 06.04.2023, fresh notice was issued upon opposite
party no.2, which was received by her father and in view of that, notice was
again directed to be issued upon opposite party no.2 vide order dated
27.09.2023, which has also been received by her father. Today on repeated
calls, nobody has responded on behalf of opposite party no.2. In view of
that, notice upon opposite party no.2 is deemed to be validly served and,
accordingly, this matter is being heard in absence of opposite party no.2.
2. Heard Mr. Binit Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, learned counsel for the State.
3. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order taking
cognizance dated 15.03.2010, whereby, the learned Court has been pleased
to take cognizance under Section 361 and 376(G) of the Indian Penal Code
against the petitioner in connection with P.C.R. Case No.479/2008 (T.R.
No.259/2012). The further prayer is made for quashing of the entire
criminal proceedings, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Dumka. The prayer is also made for quashing of the orders
dated 03.05.2010, 12.08.2011, 19.10.2011 and 28.02.2012, whereby, non-
bailable warrant of arrest, processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. and
permanent warrant of arrest respectively have been directed to be issued
against the petitioner.
4. Mr. Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
for the same occurrence, the complainant has earlier lodged FIR being
Ramgarh P.S. Case No.115/2008. He submits that after the charge-sheet,
the petitioner has faced trial in that case and ultimately, he has been
acquitted in that case vide judgment dated 12.06.2012. He further submits
that the present case has been filed when the petitioner was released on
bail and this fact has been stated in paragraph 7 of the complaint petition.
He also submits that on the direction of the learned Revisional Court, the
learned Trial Court has added Section 376(G) of the Indian Penal Code. He
submits that there is no application of independent mind by the learned
Trial Court. He submits that the said complaint case was dismissed by the
learned Trial Court, which was challenged in the revision petition and the
learned Revisional Court has set aside the order and directed the learned
Trial Court to proceed and in view of that, the learned Trial Court has got no
option and he has taken cognizance against the petitioner.
5. Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the State submits that it appears that for
the same occurrence, the present complaint case has been filed.
6. In view of the complaint petition itself in paragraph 7, it has been
disclosed that when the petitioner was granted bail, the present
complaint case has been filed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal
Code, whereas, earlier FIR being Ramgarh P.S. Case No.115/2008 was
lodged under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, only because
the petitioner was granted bail in the earlier case, the present complaint
case has been filed.
7. Further the impugned order dated 15.03.2010, whereby, the learned
Court has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioner, is also a
non-speaking order. The learned Trial Court has been pleased to take
cognizance only on the direction of the learned Revisional Court and there is
no independent application of judicial mind. In view of the revisional order,
the learned Trial Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner without
applying judicial mind. In fact, he was not having any option as the learned
Revisional Court has issued direction. If the learned Revisional Court was
satisfied that the dismissal is wrong, fresh enquiry by the learned Court was
correct mode of action, however, direction has been issued, which is not in
accordance with law.
8. For the same allegation, the present complaint case has been filed
which is not permissible in view of Section 300 of Cr.P.C. as well as Article
20(2) of the Constitution of India.
9. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal
proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 15.03.2010 as well
as the orders dated 03.05.2010, 12.08.2011, 19.10.2011 and 28.02.2012 in
connection with P.C.R. Case No.479/2008 (T.R. No.259/2012), pending in
the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dumka are quashed.
10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
