MUSTAQUE AHMAD @ MUSHTAQUE AHAMED @ MUSHTAQUE AHMAD Vs. STATE (THROUGH C.B.I.)
LAWS(JHAR)-2017-8-31
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on August 16,2017

Mustaque Ahmad @ Mushtaque Ahamed @ Mushtaque Ahmad Appellant
VERSUS
State (Through C.B.I.) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Petitioner is an accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B) read with Sections 496 / 376 / 323 / 298 / 354(A) / 506 / 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code in connection with R.C. Case No. 9(S) of 2015 arising out of Kotwali (Hindpiri) P.S. Case no. 742 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 4705 of 2014, pending in the court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.), Ranchi.
(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the informant Tara Shahdeo had lodged an F.I.R. being Kotwali (Hindpiri) P.S. Case no. 742 of 2014 on 19.08.2014 under Sections 498-A / 34 of I.P.C. against her husband Ranjit Singh Kohli and her mother-in-law Kaushal Rani. The petitioner was neither named in the F.I.R. nor any whisper was made against him in the fardbeyan recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Mahila Police Station, Ranchi, on 19.08.2014 giving rise to lodging of Kotwali (Hindpiri) P.S. Case no. 742 of 2014. The local police took up the investigation and after the investigation submitted the charge-sheet against Ranjit Singh Kohli and Kaushal Rani under Sections 498-A / 34 of I.P.C. being charge-sheet no. 911 of 2014 on 23.10.2014. Subsequently, the local police submitted the supplementary charge-sheet being charge-sheet no. 44 of 2015 on 22.01.2015 under Section 153(A) and 295(A) of I.P.C. against Ranjit Singh Kohli and Kaushal Rani. In the said charge-sheets also, there has been no allegation against the petitioner regarding his involvement in the present case. However, in the pursuance of the order dated 22.05.2015 passed by this Court in W.P.(PIL) No. 4400 of 2014 and notification issued by the State of Jharkhand dated 30.08.2014 extending the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole of State of Jharkhand for investigating the offence pertaining to the present case, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi vide notification dated 25.11.2014 under Section 5(1) read with Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 referred the case to C.B.I. for further investigation. Thereafter, C.B.I. took up the investigation by registering a regular case on 10.08.2015 and on conclusion of the investigation, the C.B.I. submitted the final report/ charge-sheet on 12.05.2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B) read with Sections 496 / 376 / 323 / 298 / 354(A) / 506 / 498(A) of I.P.C. wherein the petitioner has been arrayed as accused no.3. Learned senior counsel puts much emphasis on the fact that after lodging of the F.I.R. by the local police on the fardbeyan of the informant Tara Shahdeo, her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded on 21.08.2014 wherein she did not attribute any allegation against the petitioner rather in the said statement, the informant stated that the petitioner is not a bad person.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.