Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Rajeev Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 July, 2025
ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.9 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7942/2019
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21-06-2019
in ABA No. 3514/2019 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at
Ranchi]
RAJEEV KUMAR SHARMA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. Respondent(s)
IA No. 133835/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT,IA No. 133836/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 14-07-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Pradeep Kumar Kaushik, Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Mangla, AOR
Dr. Sunil Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Mohit Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Shivam Singh Rana, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Adv.
Mr. Shantanu Sagar, AOR
Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Prakash Kumarmangalam, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in connection with
Complaint Case No. 4329 of 2018 registered in the Court of
Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranchi for the offence punishable under
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Sections 498A, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
CHANDRESH
Date: 2025.07.17
10:18:46 IST
Reason:
1860 (for short “the IPC”) and Sections 3 and 4 respectively of the
1
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 prayed for anticipatory bail first
before the Sessions Court and thereafter before the High Court. The
High Court unfortunately has passed a very curious order. The
Order reads thus:-
“Apprehending his arrest the petitioner has moved this
Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in
connection with Complaint Case No.4329 of 2018
registered under sections 498A/ 323 / 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and under section 3/4 of the D.P. Act.
Heard the parties.
The opposite party no.2 is present in the Court
today.
The opposite party no.2 submits that she is not
ready and willing to resume her conjugal life with the
petitioner because of his past conduct but the learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is ready and willing to resume his conjugal life with
the opposite party no.2.
The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the allegations against the petitioner are false and
are general and omnibus in nature. It is further
submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to
pay Rs. 2,50,000/- as ad interim victim compensation
to the complainant-opposite party no. 2 – Pallavi Rani
Sharma without prejudice to his defence in this case.
Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given
the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 opposes the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail.
Considering the submissions of the counsels and the
fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that it
is a fit case where the above named petitioner be
given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in
the event of his arrest or surrender within a period
of eight weeks from the date of this order, he shall
be released on bail on depositing a demand draft of
Rs.2,50,000/- as ad interim victim compensation in
favour of complainant-opposite party no. 2 – Pallavi
Rani Sharma and on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in connection
with Complaint Case No. 4329 of 2018 subject to the
conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
In case, the petitioner deposits the ad interim
victim compensation amount, the court below is
directed to issue notice to the complainant-opposite2
party no. 2 – Pallavi Rani Sharma and hand over the
said demand draft to her, after proper identification.
In case, the said amount is received by the
complainant-opposite party no. 2, the same shall be
adjusted with respect to the maintenance in any
present or future proceeding between the parties or
final settlement between the parties, if and when the
same takes place”
2. We take notice of the fact that the respondent no.2 herein is
the wife of the petitioner. She thought fit to file a private
complaint in the Court of the Magistrate for the offences as
enumerated above.
3. It appears that the magistrate has not done anything so far.
The Magistrate has three options:- first to take cognizance and
issue process or to send the complaint for police investigation
under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code,1973 (for short
“the Cr.P.C.”), or to initiate magisterial inquiry under Section
202 of the Cr.P.C and thereafter may decide to even dismiss the
complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. Before the Magistrate
could do anything, the petitioner apprehended arrest at the hands
of the police. We fail to understand how the police would come into
picture, unless and until, the Magistrate directs police
investigation under Section 156 (3) to the Cr.P.C. This aspect has
not been looked into by the High Court and the High Court proceeded
to pass the impugned order.
4. There was no basis at all for the petitioner to anticipate
arrest in the circumstances, referred to above.
3
5. The petitioner not only wasted time of the Sessions Court as
well as the High Court, but also of this Court.
6. Unfortunately, the aspect highlighted by us was
not even looked by the High Court.
7. Nothing further is required to be done in the matter.
8. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
9. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(CHANDRESH) (POOJA SHARMA)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
4
[ad_1]
Source link