Ajmerun Khatoon vs State of Jharkhand and another

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, learned APP for the State.

In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 12.8.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga in connection with G.R. No. 28 of 2015 (Bhandra P.S. Case No. 94 of 2015), whereby and where under, cognisance has been for the offence punishable u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.).

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the F.I.R. was instituted against four accused persons including the petitioner, but in course of investigation the police, having found the case not true against the petitioner, has submitted final form. It has been further submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga, disagreeing with the final form submitted by the I.O., has found a prima facie case against the petitioner and taken cognisance for the offence punishable u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) vide order 12.8.2009. Learned counsel further submits that sufficient reasons have not been assigned by the learned Judicial Magistrate with respect to disagreement with the finding of the I.O. and in this case context he has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2012) 2 SCC 188.

Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand has submitted that the petitioner was present in the house when the quarrel had taken place between the deceased and her husband which ultimately resulted in committing suicide by her. Learned counsel has further submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga has recorded sufficient reason, while disagreeing with the finding of the I.O. which is reflected in the order dated 12.8.2015 and in such circumstances, the present application is liable to be dismissed.

It appears that the final report was submitted by the I.O. in which the petitioner was not sent up for trail, but subsequently learned Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga had disagreed with the final report and had taken cognisance vide order dated 12.08.2015. It further appears that the learned Judicial Magistrate has considered the investigation report in detail and after assigning reasons has taken cognisance.

In such circumstances, therefore the impugned order cannot be said to be a unreasoned order and since no infirmity or illegality could be pointed out in the order taking cognisance, I am not inclined to entertain this application, which is accordingly dismissed.