IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 576 of 2008
Guddi @ Farhat Parveen & Ors. ..... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
For the Petitioner: Ms.Rajesh Kumar & S.S.Choudhary,Advocates
For the State : Mrs. Nitu Sinha (A.P.P.)
For the Informant: Mr.Gautam Kumar, Advocate
....
C.A.V. ON 7/5/2009 PROUNCED ON 26 / 05 / 2009
The petitioners have preferred this criminal revision for setting aside the order dated
28.4.2008
passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj in G.R.Case No.
170 of 2005 whereby he has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the accused (petitioner)
under section 239 Cr.P.C.
2. Prosecution case in nutshell is that the informant Rizwana Parvin lodged a written
report before the O/C Town P.S. stating therein that she was married to Md. Masrur Alam.
On 15.2.1999 at the time of her marriage her father gave 220 gr. gold, 800gr. Silver,
Jewellery, apart from 75,000/- cash. The informant went to her matrimonial house where
she realized that she was married to a greedy family. Few days after her marriage, her
mother-in-law and sister-in-law took away her ornaments and started demanding
Rs.3,00,000/- as they wanted to purchase a flat in the name of her husband. When the
informant protested, all her in-laws, her husband started assaulting her. In the meantime,
the informant was pregnant she informed about the torture to her father at which her father
came to her in-laws house. The informant was assaulted by the accused persons to such an
extent that she had a miscarriage. The second time when she became pregnant, she came to
her parents house and on 3.11.2001 she gave birth to a male child at Sahibganj. The in-laws
family was informed about the birth of a child but none turned up to see the child. Her
husband visited Sahibganj after great efforts made by the informant’s father but the
behavior did not change and he assaulted her and demanded Rs.3,00,000/-. The informant’s
husband used to visit her from time to time. On 26.6.2003 she gave birth to second child.
At this time her in laws visited her but they misbehaved with her parents and assaulted her.
The accused persons tried to take away her first son with them. The informant again
2
pregnant but due to assault the child in womb had adverse impact, had died within eight
hours of his birth.
3. Mr. Rajesh Kumar the learned counsel of the petitioners submits that there is no
direct / specific allegation against any of the petitioners rather general and omnibus
allegations were made against them. He has further submitted that the petitioner nos. 3 to 6
are residing at Kolkata and they have been falsely implicated in this case only to harass and
humiliate them. His further contention is that the learned trial court has mechanically
rejected the discharge application preferred on behalf of the petitioners.
4. From the impugned order and from the case diary, I find that the witnesses have
supported the prosecution case. The independent witness namely Salimuddin has also
supported the prosecution case. From the impugned order I find the petitioners have filed
the petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C. in the trial court. Upon which the impugned order
was passed by the trial court. The Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. shows:-
“When accused shall be discharged.- If, upon considering the police
report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 and making such
examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and
after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being
heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be
groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so
doing”.
Therefore the Magistrate is obliged to record his reasons if he decides to discharge
the accused.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanti Bhadra Shah and anothers
Vrs.State of W.B. reported in 2000 (1) S.C.C. Page No.722, has observed:-
“If there is no legal requirement that the trial court should write an order
showing the reasons for framing a charge, why should the already
burdened trial courts be further burdened with such an extra work. The
time has reached to adopt all possible measures to expedite the court
procedures and to chalk out measures to avert all roadblocks causing
avoidable delays. If a Magistrate is to write detailed orders at different
stages merely because the counsel would address arguments at all stages,
3the snail-paced progress of proceedings in trial courts would further be
slowed down. We are coming across interlocutory orders of Magistrates
and Sessions Judges running into several pages. We can appreciate if
such a detailed order has been passed for culminating the proceedings
before them .But it is quite unnecessary to write detailed orders at other
stages, such as issuing process, remanding the accused to custody,
framing of charges, passing over to next stages in the trial. It is a salutary
guideline that when orders rejecting or granting bail are passed, the court
should avoid expressing one way or the other on contentious issues,
except in cases such as those falling within Section 37 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 1985″.
6. Therefore, as there is sufficient material on record against the petitioners, I do not
find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The Hon’ble Apex Court has
observed in a number of cases that at this stage the court is not to see whether the sufficient
ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in conviction. If
there is sufficient material which leads the court to thing that there is ground for presuming
that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the court to discharge the
accused persons.
7. Having considered the fact and circumstances of the case and the law settled by the
Hon’ble Apex Court I find no merit in this application. Accordingly, the revision
application is dismissed.
(Jaya Roy,J.)
BS/