Bhagalpur Police misleads High Court regarding coercion, confinement of a UGC-NET candidate

In Kumar Divyam vs. State of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Home Department (2024), Patna High Court's division bench of Justices P. B. Bajanthri and Alok Kumar Pandey passed an order on August 13, 2024. The Court asked the Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur Naugachiya "to send women police officer to the residence of Shambhu Nath Thakur, the Respondent No. 6 and Milli Kumari, the Respondent No. 7 and find out whether Arpita Kumari who is stated to be a friend of the petitioner is illegally confined and not permitting her to go out of the house. The order noted that Arpita Kumari is required to appear in the UGC-NET examination earmarked for appointment of lecturer which is scheduled to be held between August 21, 2024 to September 4, 2024. Her confinement would take away her right to participate in the examination or not? This information is to be secured and the Court is to be apprised on the next date of hearing. The other respondents were the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, the Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur (Naugachiya), the Officer In-Charge Sultanganj Police Station, Patna and the Officer In-Charge Jhandapur, Bihpur, Bhagalpur besides the above mentioned Respondents. 

On August 20, 2024,  the Court's order recorded that the counter affidavit on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur Naugachiya, the Respondent No. 3 along with two documents. It reads: "Even though we are satisfied that victim girl is not staying under any coercion with her parents. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to pressure/coercion she has given her statement on 14.08.2024." Responding to the submission of Manju Sharma, the counsel for the petitioner, the Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur Naugachiya, the Respondent no. 3 "to arrange for presence of Arpita Kumari on the next date of hearing so as to interact with her whether has she submitted statement on 14.08.2024 was under duress or not? The police official must accompany her in a civil dress." The matter was re-listed for hearing on August 27, 2024. 

Notably, the petitioner had prayed for passing necessary direction or order for the release of the victim from her wrongful and illegal confinement in the residential house itself at the instance of her parents by way of issuing writ of Habeas corpus with the help of concerned respondent authority.

The final order of the Court was made on August 27, 2024.  It reads: "Today, Arpita Kumari is present in the Court. She is a major and she submitted that due to coercion/duress, she has given her statement on 14.08.2024 and such statement has been given on the threat by the P.S.I-Mr. Panna Lal Rai, who had visited the residence of Arpita Kumari. The aforementioned statement has been obtained in the presence of parents of Arpita Kumari. After these events, the parents of Arpita Kumari had assured her that she will not be kept in house custody and she would be free to move from the house and return. Due to act of the parents and the P.S.I-Mr. Panna Lal Rai, Arpita Kumari lost her opportunity and right to participate in the process of UGC NET examination for appointment of Lecturer. Thereby, her career has been ruined."

The judgment observed:"The Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur, Nagauchiya, is requested to initiate action against the police officer-Mr. Panna Lal Rai about his conduct when he was on duty under the directions of this Court in the aforementioned case, resultantly Arpita Kumari lost her right to appear in the UGC Net examination earmarked for appointment of lecturer. It is also learnt that the aforementioned police officer is a probationer. During probation, if he behaves in this manner then we should imagine of his attitude after his confirmation in the post. At this juncture, Arpita Kumari, with reference to assurance given by her parents, she intends to stay with her parents. The aforementioned statement is recorded in her presence. With the above observations, present petition stands disposed of."

It is not clear whether Kumar Divyam's prayer for relief and justice got addressed. Arpita Kumari could not appear for the UGC-NET examination under the gaze of the Court. Had the Court been more prompt in safeguarding her right, it could have asked for her presence in the Court on on August 20, 2024 itself. It could have enabled her to appear for the UGC NET examination held between August 21, 2024 to September 4, 2024. The Court should have ensured that she appeared for the examination.  

From the perusal of the orders of the Court it is crystal clear that the counter affidavit on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur Naugachiya, the Respondent No. 3 along with two documents misled the Court regarding coercion of the victim and her confinement.  

The question is: now that the petition has been disposed of, who will monitor compliance of Court's order seeking action against Panna Lal Rai, the police officer for his misconduct in spite of being duty under the directions of the Court.  

Patna HIgh Court's Justice Arun Kumar Jha sets aside Bhagalpur Court's judgement in a civil suit

In Smt. Baby Devi v,  State of Bihar and others, Patna High Court's Justice Arun Kumar Jha set aside the order dated March 26, 2018 passed by the Munsif-II, Sadar, Bhagalpur in Title Suit No. 109 of 1993 because it could be sustained. As a consequence, the Court allowed the petition filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It directed the trial court to implead the intervenor-petitioner as defendant in Title Suit No. 109 of 1993.

Section 151 of the Code deals with the inherent powers of Court. It states that "Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court." 

Order I of the First Schedule of the Code deals with the Parties to the Suits. 

The Rule 10 under Order I of the Code deals with "Suit in name of wrong plaintiff", "Court may strike out or add parties" and "Where defendant added, plaint to be amended" subject to the provisions of the Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It states that "Where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and, if the Court thinks fit, on the original defendant". 

The petition was filed in the High Court because the petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for impleadment of the petitioner as defendant in the  title suit was rejected by the Munsif-II, Sadar, Bhagalpur. 

The Title Suit No. 109 of 1993 was filed by the private respondents who are Trustees of one Pachrukhi Goshala at District-Bhagalpur against the defendants, the State of Bihar and other authorities as well as private parties, seeking following relief(s):- (i). For declaration that Pachrukhi Goshala is the rightful owner and is in possession of the suit land through its trustees and survey entry in the name of defendants is illegal. (ii). For declaration of revisional survey entry to be wrong, inoperative and void. (iii). Permanent injunction against defendants-1st party from distributing the suit land treating as Government land through purcha. (iv). The cost of the suit and other relief(s) which the court may think fit and proper be awarded to the plaintiff. The petitioner claimed her right, title and possession over one acre and 60 ½ decimal of land of khesra no. 80, khata no. 307 out of total area of 03-acre 76 decimal. 

The petitioner had purchased the part of land of khesra no. 80 under khata no. 307 having area one acre 60 ½ decimal through registered sale-deed dated May 14, 2015 along with other land from one Vijay Chandra Das and got mutated her name in serista of State of Bihar vide mutation appeal no. 44/2015-16 dated December 9, 2016. After the mutation, the petitioner has been regularly paying the rent and obtaining rent receipts. The Circle Officer, Shahkund, Bhagalpur issued land possession certificate in the name of the present petitioner. The demarcation was also done by the Circle Officer, Shahkund. The vendor of the petitioner purchased the land through registered sale deed dated November 19, 1958 from one Rama Kant Mishra, who purchased the land on September 19, 1940 through registered sale-deed from one Brij Mohan Lal Das. The execution of sale-deeds shows continuous and peaceful possession on the suit property of khesra no. 80, khata no. 307 since 1940 either of the vendors or the petitioner herself. Therefore, it was claimed that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the suit land.

The suit land of Title Suit No. 109 of 1993 pertains to Mouza-Fatehpur, Anchal-Shahkund, District-Bhagalpur bearing khata No. 307 Khesra Nos. 96, 191, 192, 725, 245, 568, 567, 704 and 80 having area in acres and decimals as follows: 3.48, 2.83, 2.79, 7.45, 28.19, 1.59, 2.69, 2.30, 3.76 – total area 55.08 acres. The claim of the petitioner is on 01 acre 60 ½ decimals of khesra no. 80 of khata no. 307. 

The counsel of the petition submitted that the Bhagalpur court committed error in not considering the fact as well as law on the point that intervenor-petitioner is a necessary party because she is a bonafide purchaser for part of suit land and has also got her name mutated in the Register-II. Land possession certificate has been issued to her with order of demarcation and she has been paying the rent to the State of Bihar. The petitioner, being rightful owner having title and possession of the part of suit land, is not only a proper party rather she is a necessary party. But, by rejecting the prayer for impleadment of the petitioner, the learned trial court has unnecessarily created complication in the matter and if any final judgment is passed in future in absence of the petitioner, it will affect the right, title and possession of the petitioner which would cause irreparable loss to her and at the same time compel her to file another suit for enforcing her right. 

The petitioner's counsel relied on the decision of the High Court in the case of Gauri Shankar Pathak v. Shankaranand Upadhyay (2011) wherein the Single Judge allowed the petition of a lispendens transferee for his impleadment as party respondent in the appeal in view of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon (2005). He also relied on the decision of the High Court in the case of Md. Kamaluddin v. Laxmi Devi (2014), wherein the Single Judge held that position of a person on whom any interest has devolved on account of a transfer during pendency of a suit or a proceeding is similar to the position of an heir or legatee of a party who died during the pendency of the suit or proceeding and transferee could not be turned away when he applies for being added as a party in the suit. The view of the Single Judge was based upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited (2013). 

The High Court observed: "the discretion of the court under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code is limited and such discretion could be exercised even against the wishes of the plaintiff only in case a party is found to be a necessary or proper party. Thus, the courts can order for impleadment even against the wishes of the plaintiff if a party has a direct and legal interest in the subject matter of the property."

Supreme Court has held that ‘necessary parties’ are those persons in whose absence no decree can be passed by the Court or that there must be a right to some relief against some party in respect of the controversy involved in the proceedings. On the other hand ‘proper parties’ are those whose presence before the Court would be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit although no relief in the suit was claimed against such person. This was held in the case of Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal (2005). 

The Court has observed that "a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively and a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding" in Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Addl. Member Board of Revenue (1963).  

In the case of Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum (1958), the Supreme Court has held that in a suit relating to property in order that a third party may be impleaded, he/she should have a direct or legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation as distinguished from a commercial interest. Legal interest so interpreted means that the result of the suit would affect the third party illegally.

In Smt. Baby Devi v,  State of Bihar, the petitioner claims her right, title and possession over a part of suit property which has been filed challenging the entry in revisional survey entry khatiyan. It is true that neither the vendor of the petitioner nor the petitioner herself have been mentioned in the khatiyan entry nor vendor was made party by the plaintiff but there could be no denial of the fact that the claim of the intervenor-petitioner on a portion of suit property is based upon registered sale deeds dated September 19, 1940 and November 19, 1958 and the same cannot be simply brushed aside. It is trite to say that khatiyan entry doe not create or extinguish any right. So, the petitioner has been able to show substantial interest in the suit property and she could also claim certain relief(s) against the plaintiff and defendants. Further, any order or decree passed by the court would not be an effective decree in absence of the petitioner herein. 

The High Court drew on Supreme Court's judgement in the case of Sumtibai v. Paras Finance Co. Partnership Firm (2007) besides several other decisions wherein it was held that a party having a semblance of interest in the suit property could be impleaded as intervenor in the suit. Therefore, Justice Jha concluded that the petitioner is a necessary party who needs to be impleaded as one of the defendants in Title Suit No. 109 of 1993.

Patna High Court detects blunder in a murder case order of Additional District & Sessions Judge-V, Bhagalpur

Patna High Court's order observes, that although the appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) "but surprisingly they have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/. There cannot be any sentence of less than life in a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC. We do not know whether it was an inadvertent mistake." The Court is examine the Trial Court Records and is likey to hear the matter March  4, 2024. 

Justice Kumar's order reads: "....we would consider the feasibility of issuing any notice of enhancement of sentence to the appellants or remitting the case to the Trial Court for writing out a fresh judgment with appropriate sentence."

It is apparent that  a very serious error has been committed in reducing the sentence from imprisonment for life to ten years.

A Criminal Appeal (Division Bench) was filed against conviction on October 5, 2023. It was registered on October 16, 2023 by Manoj Kumar Jha, the counsel for Santosh Yadav, the petitioner. Upon hearing the matter on January 15, 2024, the bench of Justices Ashutosh Kumar and Nani Tagia passed the order. The order authored by Justice Kumar called for the Trial Court Records in connection with S.T. No.973 of 2017/ Trial No.213 of 2022 arising out of Nathnagar (Lalmatia) P.S. case No.306/2017 from the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge-V, Bhagalpur because the order appears to be contrary to the punishment for murder under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). 

The provision reads: “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” Supreme Court's bench of Justices M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari has held on September 2, 2022 that "any punishment/sentence less than the imprisonment for life shall be contrary to Section 302 of the IPC." The order was authored by Justice Shah.