Skip to content


Manish Biswas and Anr Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided On
AppellantManish Biswas and Anr
RespondentState of Jharkhand and Anr
Excerpt:
.....1. the state of jharkhand 2. yogmaya sarkar … opposite parties --- coram: hon’ble mr. justice rongon mukhopadhyay --- for the petitioner : mr. md. sohail anwar, sr advocate & mr. afaque ahmad, advocate for the state : mr. asif kha, app for the o.p. no. 2 : none --- order no. 07 dated 1st september, 2016 heard mr. m. s. anwar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and mr. asif khan, learned counsel appearing for the state. no one has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2. in this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with borio (j) p.s. case no. 187 of 2009 (g.r. no. 448 of 2009) including the order dated 18.10.2010 passed by learned chief judicial magistrate, sahibganj, whereby and whereunder, cognizance has been.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1595 of 2010 --- Subodh Bara Babu @ Subodh Kumar Yadav.... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Yogmaya Sarkar … Opposite Parties --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Sohail Anwar, Sr Advocate & Mr. Afaque Ahmad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Asif Kha, APP For the O.P. No. 2 : None --- Order No. 07 Dated 1st September, 2016 Heard Mr. M. S. Anwar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Asif Khan, learned counsel appearing for the State. No one has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.

2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Borio (J) P.S. Case No. 187 of 2009 (G.R. No. 448 of 2009) including the order dated 18.10.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj, whereby and whereunder, cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to connect the petitioner with the incident as alleged by the opposite party No. 2 and in fact she is in the habit of filing false and frivolous cases. It has also been submitted that a high level enquiry was conducted on the complaint made by the wife of the petitioner. It has also been submitted that on the application made by the wife of the petitioner, it had finally come to light that there was no involvement of the petitioner in commission of the offence and finally final report has been submitted in favour of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the impugned order dated 18.10.2010 merely referred to statement of hearsay witnesses and without considering the entire material and evidence available on record, the said order taking cognizance dated 18.10.2010 has been passed. Therefore, the impugned order dated 18.10.2010, which does not contain any reason, is liable to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Asif Khan, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has referred to Para-3 of the case diary which contains the statement of one Sandhya Devi, who has enumerated about the entire episode and Para-18 of the case diary containing the statement of one Vishnu Paswan, who had seen the victim going to the office. Learned counsel 2. therefore submits that sufficient circumstances are evident with respect to the commission of offence and therefore the present application is liable to be dismissed. It appears that initially on the basis of the statement of Sandhya Devi and Vishnu Paswan, the case was found to be true, but subsequently on the application preferred by the wife of the petitioner and upon investigation into the same, the case was found to be false which led to submission of final form in favour of the petitioner. On the basis of a protest petition filed by the opposite party No. 2 and considering the material available on the case diary, cognizance was taken vide order dated 18.10.2010 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj by differing with the final report so submitted by the police. Admittedly, from the case diary there does not appear to be any direct evidence which could implicate the petitioner in commission of the offence. The witnesses at Para-3 of the case diary, namely, Sandhya Devi has merely enumerated what has allegedly been stated to her by opposite party No.

2. From the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that other witnesses were there who had not supported the allegation, but the impugned order dated 18.10.2010 does not contain any discussion with respect to the evidence which had been collected in favour of the petitioner. The impugned order therefore has not considered the entire materials available on record while taking cognizance for the offence punishable u/s 376 I.P.C. In such circumstances, therefore the order dated 18.10.2010 being a non-reasoned order is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj who shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law after considering the materials available on record. This application is allowed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.730 of 2009 --- 1. Manish Biswas 2. Bhaskar Biswas .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Pranay Kumar … Opposite Parties --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate For the State : APP --- Order No. 04 Dated 1st September, 2016 Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners, seeks permission to withdraw this application. Permission is accorded. Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1248 of 2011 --- Piyush Martin Kujur .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ashok Kumar Jha … Opposite Parties --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Thankachan P.V., Advocate For the State : APP --- Order No. 03 Dated 1st September, 2016 Mr. Thankachan P.V., learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw this application. Permission is accorded. Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1279 of 2009 --- 1. Triveni Prasad Shahi 2. Girja Devi 3. Gudia Kumari 4. Kundan Shahi .... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : APP --- Order No. 03 Dated 1st September, 2016 Learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners, seeks permission to withdraw this application. Permission is accorded. Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2345 of 2014 --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- Order No. 10 Dated 1st September, 2016 As prayed for, list this case on 22.09.2016. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted on that day. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.877 of 2008 -- Bidhu Bhushan Divedi .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & another … Opposite Parties --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the O.P. No. 2 : Ms. Puja Kumari, Advocate --- Order No. 11 Dated 1st September, 2016 Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has received all the documents in order to file affidavit which shall be filed within a couple of days. List this case on 08.09.2016. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted on that day. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.428 of 2016 --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- Order No. 04 Dated 1st September, 2016 As prayed for, list this case on 08.09.2016. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1803 of 2016 -- Dayali Mahto .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. --- Order No. 02 Dated 1st September, 2016 This application has been filed for modification of the order dated 06.05.2016 passed in A.B.A. No. 781 of 2016. It appears that petitioner has arrayed as petitioner No. 9 in A.B.A. No. 781 of 2016, and the prayer for anticipatory bail has been allowed vide order dated 06.05.2016 with respect to all the petitioners of that anticipatory bail application, but the petitioner, namely, Dayali Mahto could not surrender before the learned court below, as he was undergoing medical treatment. Having been satisfied with the ground mentioned in this application, the same is allowed and the order dated 06.05.2016 passed in A.B.A. No. 781 of 2016 is modified to the extent that the period of surrendering of petitioner is extended for a further period of three weeks from today. It is made clear that this order will be applicable only with respect to petitioner, namely, Dayali Mahto who has been arrayed as petitioner No. 9 in A.B.A. No. 781 of 2016. Let this order be communicated through fax. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1948 of 2015 -- Md. Arif .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P. --- Order No. 02 Dated 1st September, 2016 Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the animals which were transported on the trucks were all milk giving buffaloes, which does not come under the definition of a bovine animals as defined u/s 2(b) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animals Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005. It has also been submitted that the animals were being transported on the basis of valid document, which has been considered by the learned court below while releasing the vehicle in question. Mr. S. K. Srivastava, learned A.P.P. is directed to seek instruction and file counter affidavit bringing on record the investigation which is being carried out by the Investigating Officer. List this case after three weeks. Until further orders, further proceedings of Govindpur P.S. case No. 422 of 2014 (G.R. No. 4009) of 2014), pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad shall remain stayed so far as the petitioner is concerned. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1992 of 2015 --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- Order No. 05 Dated 1st September, 2016 No one appears for the petitioner. List after two weeks. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 521 of 2016 -- Ehsan Khan alias Aehsan Khan .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & another … Opposite Parties --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Azeemuddin, Advocate For the State : APP --- Order No. 05 Dated 1st September, 2016 This case has been listed at the instance of office for modification of the order dated 17.08.2016 passed in this case, as there is some typographical error in the last paragraph of said order. Last paragraph of the order dated 17.08.2016 is as under:- "Until further orders, the operation of the order dated 19.03.2016 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 159 of 2010 by learned further proceedings in connection with C.M.A. Case No. 116 of 2012, pending before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi shall remain stayed". Let the last paragraph of order dated 17.08.2016 passed in this case is hereby modified and read as follows:- "Until further orders, the operation of the order dated 19.03.2016 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 159 of 2010 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi shall remain stayed". The order dated 17.08.2016 is modified to the extent, as indicated above. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) MK N THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 826 of 2016 -- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- Order No. 05 Dated 1st September, 2016 Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned A.P.P. for the State. List this case on 08.09.2016 under the heading 'For Orders'. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1987 of 2015 --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- Order No. 04 Dated 1st September, 2016 No one appears for the petitioner. List after two weeks. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2010 of 2015 --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- Order No. 03 Dated 1st September, 2016 No one appears for the petitioner. List after two weeks. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2001 of 2015 -- Most. Jitani Ghatwalin .... Petitioner Versus Smt. Panbathi Devi & others … Opposite Parties --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Sajid Yunus, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. --- Order No. 03 Dated 1st September, 2016 It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that although the revisional Court has found that there was no necessity to interfere with the order of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate passed in a proceeding u/s 144 Cr.P.C., the said order has been set aside by the learned revisional court. Issue notice to opposite party No. 1 to show cause as to why this application be not disposed of at the stage of admission itself or admitted for which requisite etc under registered cover with A.D. as well as by ordinary process must be filed by 08.09.2016, failing which this application as against her shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench. List this after appearance of opposite party No.

1. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) MK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2025 of 2015 --- Dr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Manikant Mandal … Opposite Parties --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rabindra Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailendra Jit, APP --- Order No. 02 Dated 1st September, 2016 Heard Mr. Rabindra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shailendra Jit, learned counsel appearing for the State. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Bengabad P.S. Case No. 27 of 2015 (G.R. No. 533 of 2015) registered for the offences punishable u/s 135 of the Electricity Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that only with a mala fide intention the present criminal proceeding has been initiated since the contract of the wife of one of the members of raiding party who was Assistant Electrical Engineer, Rural was not extended, as she was working as Assistant Professor in B.N.S. D.A.V. Teachers' Training College, Giridih, by the petitioner being the Principal of the said college. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was having a valid electrical connection as such there was no question of committing the pilferage of electricity. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that the investigation is at its nascent stage and the allegations do suggest the involvement of the petitioner. It appears that bypassing the meter which was fixed in the premises, theft of electricity was going on. The allegation made against the petitioner does not justify quashment of the entire criminal proceedings. So far as the plea which has been taken by the petitioner with respect to non-renewal of the contract of the wife of one of the members of the raiding party, the same is merely a defence on the part of the petitioner, which cannot be looked into a proceeding u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Proceeding. In such circumstances, there being no merit in this application, the same is accordingly dismissed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) MK 2


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //