Cr. M. P. No. 1651 of 2009. Case: 1. A. K. Srivastava @ Ajay Kumar Srivastava, 2. Manju Sinha, 3. Kunal Sinha, 4. Alankar Sinha Vs 1. The State of Jharkhand, 2. Mrs. Gita Singh. Jharkhand High Court
| Case Number | Cr. M. P. No. 1651 of 2009 |
| Counsel | For Appellants: Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate and For Respondent: A.P.P. and Mr. Ashok Kr. Sinha, Advocate |
| Judges | D.G.R. Patnaik, J. |
| Issue | Criminal Procedure Code - Section 319; Indian Penal Code - Section 323 |
| Judgement Date | July 29, 2010 |
| Court | Jharkhand High Court |
Judgment:
D.G.R. Patnaik, J., (At Ranchi)
-
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State as also the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2.
-
The petitioners, in this application have prayed for quashing the order dated-16.11.2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 825 of 2006, whereby the learned court below has issued summons directing the petitioners to appear in the case and to face trial for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C.
-
Assailing the impugned order of cognizance, learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the impugned order of cognizance is bad both on the points of law as well as on facts and has been passed without application of judicial mind and without appreciating the facts of the case in proper perspective. Elaborating the arguments, learned counsel explains that in the complaint petition as also in the depositions, the complainant has not made any specific allegation against the present petitioners, except some allegations against one of the accused, namely, K. K. Mandirwar. As such, the learned court below had taken cognizance only against the aforesaid coaccused, namely, K.K. Mandirwar and not against the present petitioners, though they were also named in the complaint petition. Learned counsel adds that on a bare reading of the statement of the complainant, it would be apparent that the names of the petitioners are intentionally and deliberately referred to by the complainant only to harass them.
Learned counsel adds that even as has been explained by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Kailash-versus-The State of Rajasthan & Another reported in AIR 2008 SC 1564, the scope under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. has to be exercised judiciously and the Magistrate has to take also into notice, that the evidences are cogent, reliable and sufficient to secure conviction of the accused persons and if on the other hand, the evidences are inconsistent, contradictory and vague and the chances of conviction is bleak, then it would not be proper to summon the accused persons to face trial.
-
Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 as also learned counsel for the State would argue that considering the statements of the complainant and her witnesses, the learned court below has rightly considered that the petitioners are also liable to face trial for the offences and the exercise of powers under Section 319 of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial