Rani Kumari And Others vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

Instant petition has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 22.10.2020 under Sections 341, 342, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3, 4 of Prevention of Witch Craft Act in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No.238 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No.719 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla.

The order has been impugned on the ground that petitioner no.1 was not named in the F.I.R. and after investigation, only Rani Kumari was sent up for trial and charge sheet has been submitted against petitioner nos.2 and 3. Learned Court below while differing with the findings of the investigating agency, has taken cognizance against all these three petitioners without assigning any specific reason.

The impugned order has been challenged on the ground that petitioner no.1 is neither named in the F.I.R. nor has been named in the re-statement of the informant and witnesses in para 2, 3 and 4 of the case diary. Despite there being no material against the petitioner no.1, charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken against her without application of judicial mind.

It is further submitted that there are material contradictions in the prosecution version as stated in the F.I.R. and in the case diary during investigation.

Learned A.P.P. assisted by learned counsel on behalf of informant have defended the impugned order. It is submitted that the F.I.R. is not to be accepted encyclopedia of the entire prosecution story. There is specific reference in the F.I.R. that petitioner nos.2 and 3 who are named in the F.I.R. and other family members conjointly identified the victim lady and assaulted her.

After having considered the rival submissions, it is apparent that both the parties are from the same village and are very well acquainted with each other. Despite this, the petitioner no.1 is not named in the F.I.R. nor her name comes in the statements of the witnesses in para 2, 3 and 4 of the case dairy. The cognizance appears to be taken appears to have been mechanically against the petitioner no.1 without any material on record.

Under the circumstance, the order taking cognizance so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, is set aside.

Further, I do not find any infirmity in the order taking cognizance with respect to other petitioners.

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly disposed of.