In Azimun Khatun (Dead) Through LRS vs The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025), in its order dated April 30, 2025, Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan observed:"This is a very peculiar case. There were two first information reports (FIRs) registered in connection with the same incident. The incident is of 30th March, 2016. The original appellant in the special leave petition was the mother of the deceased. At her instance, FIR No.181 of 2016 was registered on 10th May, 2016 in which the allegation was that the wife of the deceased has killed the deceased. On 1st April, 2016, FIR No.122 of 2016 was registered at the instance of the wife of the deceased wherein she named brother of the deceased and nine others as accused.
Supreme Court's order reads" "After hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, we find that in the peculiar facts of the case, the petition for quashing filed by the private respondents ought to have been heard along with Criminal Appeal (D.B.) Appeal No.246 of 2022. However, the High Court did not exercise that option. Therefore, only course open for us is to set aside the impugned judgment and remit the petition criminal appeal. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order is set aside. Criminal Miscellaneous No.10400 of 2017 is restored to the file of the High Court of Judicature at Patna. The restored application shall be heard along with Criminal Appeal (DB) No.246 of 2022. The interim relief earlier granted in the restored petition by the High Court will continue to operate till further orders. The appeal is partly allowed on above terms."
Unlike the Supreme Court, the order Justice Rajiv Roy of the High Court reads: "Having gone through the facts of the case, the two FIRs lodged in the present case as also the submissions put forward by the respective parties and the cases cited by them, this Court is in complete agreement with the submissions put forward by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that once the two FIRs were lodged, in one case (in which the petitioner was the informant), the police investigated the case, charge-sheet submitted, cognizance taken, charges framed, trial initiated which culminated into the conviction of accused-Azmat; in another case, the police submitted final form, the learned C.J.M. Sitamarhi differed, the petitioner knocked the door of this Court and interim protection was granted to her, now that conviction order has already been passed, as stated above, the further proceeding in the present case (Runni Saidpur P.S. Case No. 181 of 2016) lodged by the informant-Azimun Khatun will be an abuse of the process of law. So far as the cases cited by the learned counsel for the informant is concerned, it has been rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that neither the two cases were clubbed together nor it is a case that the two cases were pending before the same learned Judge in which the learned Court failed to take up the matter one after another as also the fact that the trial in which Azmat was accused already stands concluded. In that backdrop, having dealt with the case on earlier occasion also (22.2.2023), this Court is convinced that the further proceeding in Runni Saidpur P.S. Case No. 181 of 2016, G.R. No. 1369/2016, Tr. No. 1814/2017 cannot continue. Accordingly, the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed and the order dated 2.2.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi in Runni Saidpur P.S. Case No. 181 of 2016, G.R. No. 1369/2016, Tr. No. 1814/2017 stands quashed. The case accordingly stands disposed of." This order which has now been set aside was passed March 17, 2023.
In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 246 of 2022, the High Court's Division Bench of Justices A.M. Badar and Harish Kumar passed the order saying, "The substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant is suspended and he is directed to be released on bail on executing P.R. bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) and on furnishing sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge IX, Sitamarhi, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 404/2016 arising out of Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 122 of 2016, till the disposal of the instant appeal. During pendency of the appeal, the recovery of fine is stayed." The order authored by Justice Badar was passed on July 3, 2023.
The charge-sheet was filed in FIR No.122 of 2016 on 28th July, 2016. In FIR No.181 of 2016, final report was filed on 10th July, 2016 seeking closure. On the basis of the protest petition, an order dated 2nd February, 2017 was passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence.
In the meanwhile, trial proceeded and the persons named in FIR No.122 of 2016 were convicted. An appeal against conviction preferred by them is pending before the Patna High Court as stated by counsel appearing for the appellants (legal representatives of the mother of the deceased). In the meanwhile, the order taking cognizance passed by the Magistrate on 2nd February, 2017 was challenged by the respondent nos.2 to 13. By the impugned order, the High Court quashed the order of Magistrate dated 2nd February, 2017 taking cognizance.
It added: "We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the merits of the quashing petition filed by the private respondents as well as pending criminal appeal. All issues are left open to be decided by the High Court." The 5-page long order was passed on April 30, 2025.
No comments:
Post a Comment