Kapil Deo Sharma and Raju @ Kumar Rajnish vs The State of Jharkhand and Another

H.C. Mishra

Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioners as also Learned Counsel for the State. No one has appeared for the opposite party No. 2 in spite of service of notice. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 13.11.2003 passed by the learned 5th A.J.C.-cum-F.T.C., Ranchi, in S.T. No. 406 of 1997, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners u/s 227 of the Cr. P.C., has been rejected by the Court below, holding that there are sufficient materials against the petitioners in the case diary for proceeding against them and for framing of charge under Sections 498A, 304B and 120B of the I.P.C.

The facts of the case lie in a short compass. Bariatu (Gonda) P.S Case No. 88 of 1996, corresponding to G.R. No. 2496/1996 was lodged by the informant opposite party No. 2, in which, the petitioner Kapil Deo Sharma and his family members, including his wife son and daughter, were made accused for the offence under Sections 304B and 201 of the I.P.C., with the allegation of committing the dowry death of the daughter-in-law of the petitioner, Kapil Deo Sharma. The petitioner Raju @ Kumar Rajnish is the brother-in-law of the deceased. It appears that the petitioners were apprehended in this case and an interim charge-sheet was filed only against these two petitioners by the police on 22.11.1996, which has been brought on record as Annexure-2 to this application. In the said interim charge-sheet, it is mentioned that the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioners, Kapil Deo Sharma and Raju @ Kumar Rajnish, whereas, the case was kept pending for investigation against the other co-accused persons. It further appears that on 30.9.1998, the police after investigation finally submitted the final form in favour of all the accused persons finding the case to be ''mistake of fact''. The final form submitted by the police has been brought on record as Annexure-3 to this application. Subsequently, a letter was also given by the Officer-in-charge of Bariatu (Gonda) police station to the concerned A.P.P, Ranchi, for withdrawing the said case.

By order dated 18.10.2000, passed in the said Bariatu (Gonda) P.S Case No. 88 of 1996, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, the final form was accepted. The said order has been brought on record as Annexure-5, which shows that before accepting the final form, the notice was issued to the informant and since no objection or protest petition was filed by the informant, the final form was accepted by the leaned Chief Judicial Magistrate. However, it appears that the case of the petitioners was already committed to the Court of Session prior to the acceptance of the final form, on the basis of which, S.T Case No. 406 of 1997 was instituted and the proceeding before the Court of Session was going on. Upon filing of the final form and acceptance of the same by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, the petitioners filed the application for discharge u/s 227 of the Cr. P.C, wherein, it was mentioned that after investigation, the police had submitted the final form in favour of all the accused persons including the petitioners, finding the case to be ''mistake of fact''. However, by the impugned order dated 13.11.2003, the Court below came to the conclusion that there are materials in the case diary for proceeding against these two accused persons under Sections 498A, 304B and 201 of the I.P.C., and the case was adjourned for framing of charge.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a piquent situation has arisen, inasmuch as, the petitioners who were unfortunately arrested by the police and the interim charge-sheet was submitted against them, only in order to deprive the petitioners the benefit of Section 167(2) of the Cr. P.C., the petitioners are compelled to face the trial, whereas no action has been taken against the other co-accused persons, in whose favour, ultimately the final form was submitted and accepted by the learned Court below. Learned Counsel, accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order, inasmuch as from the materials on record, the Court below found that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against these petitioners.

After having heard the Learned Counsels for both sides and upon going through the records as also the impugned order, I find that there are two information reports in the said case, one was lodged by the petitioner K.D. Sharma himself, in which, it was stated that the deceased had died of a natural death on account of vomiting and diarrhoea and on the other hand, the other information report was filed by Dr. Uday Narayan Sharma, the father of the deceased, making allegations of dowry death of her daughter. The final form submitted in this case, has been brought on record as Annexure-4 to this application, which shows that the interim charge-sheet was filed against these petitioners who were arrested only in order to deprive them of the benefit of Section 167(2) of the Cr. P.C. It also appears that after investigation, the police found the case ''to be mistake of fact'' and has filed the final form in favour of all the accused persons. In the present case, the situation is thus, that some of the accused persons who were not arrested and against whom, no interim charge-sheet was filed, no further action has been taken against them, inasmuch as the final form submitted in their favour has been accepted by the Chief Judicial magistrate, Ranchi, whereas the petitioners are compelled to face the trial only in view of the fact that in the meantime, their case was committed to the Court of Session.

In the peculiar facts of the case, particularly in view of the fact that the other co-accused, against whom also there were similar allegations, no cognizance was taken against them in view of the submission of the final form, whereas the petitioners are compelled to face the charge only because of the fact that in the meantime, the case was committed to the Court of Session, but subsequently the final form was submitted in favour of these petitioners also, I am of the considered view that there can be absolutely no reason as to why the petitioners, who are also situated exactly similar to the other co-accused persons, be also not discharged. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.11.2003 passed by the learned 5th A.J.C.-cum- F.T.C, Ranchi in S.T. No. 406 of 1997 is, hereby, set aside. Consequently, the petitioners stand discharged. This application is, accordingly, allowed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back forthwith.