'Actuated By Malafide At Many Levels': Patna High Court Quashes S.319 CrPC Order Passed By ADJ Accused Of Seeking Money

The Patna High Court has quashed an order summoning a man to face trial under Section 319 CrPC in a murder case, holding that the proceedings appeared to be “actuated by malafide at many levels” and that the evidence relied upon by the Trial Court was “extremely insufficient” to justify invocation of powers under Section 319 CrPC. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ansul was hearing a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging the order dated 22.08.2019 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-VII, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 492 of 2015 arising out of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 305 of 2012, whereby the petitioner was summoned to face trial under Section 319 CrPC for offences under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.The prosecution case arose out of the murder of one Bishwanath Kumar Gupta, who was allegedly shot at while returning after having tea near Bharati Chowk on 02.06.2012. He later succumbed to his injuries. The Court noted that although information had reached the police station on 02.06.2012 at 07:30 PM, the FIR appeared to have been lodged only on 03.06.2012 and reached the Magistrate on 06.06.2012.According to the petitioner, the deceased had business rivalry with one Md. Nasim, a partner in the family's fruit business, and it was due to such rivalry that the murder occurred. The petitioner further alleged that the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur, K.S. Anupam (who was allegedly related to the petitioner and had financial disputes with him) improperly influenced the investigation and caused his implication in the case.It was argued that after arrest of Md. Saddam and Md. Rustam, confessional statements under Section 164 CrPC were forcibly recorded before a Magistrate during a court holiday. The alleged motive put forward by the police was that the petitioner had directed tenants to vote for a particular municipal candidate, and since the candidate lost narrowly, the petitioner suspected that the deceased had not voted for him.The petitioner also contended that after complaints made before the Director General of Police, investigation was transferred away from the control of the then SSP and handed over to a DIG-rank officer from CID. The Court further noted allegations that the concerned SHO faced proceedings before the National Human Rights Commission, where a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed, and was also punished departmentally for wrongful investigation of the present case.The petitioner additionally made serious allegations against the concerned Additional District Judge, claiming that money had been demanded through an APP for not summoning him under Section 319 CrPC. According to the petitioner, video recordings and representations concerning these allegations were later submitted before the Inspecting Judge of the Patna High Court. The Court recorded that the petitioner had subsequently filed a supplementary affidavit stating that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the concerned judicial officer and punishment had been imposed by the High Court.While dealing with submissions made on behalf of the informant suggesting that the petitioner was an influential person who had manipulated the system, the Court strongly disapproved such allegations. The Court observed:“In the opinion of this Court this borders on contempt. There are number of occasions where a case is mentioned on the date of filing and is taken up by notifying the same and imputing motive to the Hon'ble Court in such situation is the preposterous and border on contempt.”The Court also refused to summon records of the disciplinary proceedings against the judicial officer, observing:“In the considered opinion of this Court calling for the proceeding in which a judicial officer has been punished would only amount to washing the dirty linen in public. This is a case which has the look of malafide written all over it.”Examining the legality of the summoning order under Section 319 CrPC, the Court reiterated that the foundational trigger for exercise of power under Section 319 must be evidence produced during trial and not statements under Section 164 CrPC. The Court held that the Trial Court had committed complete illegality by extensively relying upon statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC while exercising powers under Section 319 CrPC.Upon examining the depositions of witnesses recorded during trial, the Court found that out of eleven witnesses, ten had not stated anything against the petitioner. The Court observed:“If these facts are not enough a simple look at the depositions would show that out of eleven witnesses ten have not stated anything against the petitioner. Eleventh witness states that it was the petitioner who paid the killer to kill her son. Learned Sessions Judge took this into consideration without even looking at para-5 of the deposition where the lady states that this information came to her through newspaper”The Court held that such hearsay...

'Actuated By Malafide At Many Levels': Patna High Court Quashes S.319 CrPC Order Passed By ADJ Accused Of Seeking Money

Rushil Batra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Rushil Batra

'Actuated By Malafide At Many Levels': Patna High Court Quashes S.319 CrPC Order Passed By ADJ Accused Of Seeking Money

Rushil Batra

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Rushil Batra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers