Court Has More Responsibility To Read Between Lines To Prevent Harassment Of Innocent: Jharkhand HC While Quashing Rape & SC/ST Charges
The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed the criminal proceedings, including a rape charge, against Sunil Tiwari, political adviser to Jharkhand BJP chief Babulal Marandi, citing "abuse of process of law."
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, presiding over the case, noted that while the High Court is generally cautious in deciding whether a case has merit, it also has a duty to prevent malicious prosecution.
He emphasized, “if malicious prosecution is made and if the High Court will not interfere it will further amount abuse of process of law for that the High Court is having more responsibility to read the things in between the line so that any innocent person may not put to harassment and face a trial."
According to the facts of the case, the informant, initially promised a job as a "computer operator" by an individual named Laxmi Barula, arrived in Ranchi only to be assigned domestic duties at Tiwari's residence. Alongside household chores, she attended college but alleged that Tiwari gradually began to behave inappropriately towards her. She claimed he made unwelcome advances, including attempting to touch her and, in March 2020, allegedly assaulted her while intoxicated. The informant left Tiwari's residence in July 2020, alleging caste-based abuse and repeated apologies from Tiwari.
The informant claimed that after the incident, the accused repeatedly called her, apologized, and pleaded with her not to disclose the incident. In July 2020, she finally left his residence. She also alleged that when she resisted the accused's advances, he would verbally abuse her with caste-based slurs.
The Court observed in its order that there was no mention of the specific date and time when the victim was sent for medical examination, nor was it indicated when the medical examination report was issued. Additionally, the Court noted that while the mobile devices of both the petitioner and the victim were sent for data recovery and data was successfully retrieved, the details of this data were not disclosed in the chargesheet.
The Court further noted that the petitioner had been arrested on 14.09.2021 and subsequently placed in judicial custody. According to the chargesheet, the mobile phone, dongle, and SIM card were sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory; however, there was no discussion of the findings from the laboratory. Although the victim's account was referenced, there was no information provided on the account's balance or transaction history.
In light of these observations, the Court concluded that the case had been investigated maliciously, noting that the petitioner had assisted a woman who made allegations against the current Chief Minister. This involvement was mentioned in para 8(b) of the petitioner's writ, which the respondent-State did not refute in its counter-affidavit. According to the Court, this suggested that the case was registered with malicious intent, and the investigation appeared to have been conducted with a biased mindset.
The Court further remarked that “when the informant herself is not supporting the case and there is no chance of conviction,” there was no justification to proceed with the trial.
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Parbat Bhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017), whereby it was held that FIRs in cases of heinous crimes, such as rape, should not be quashed.
However, the Court pointed out that in this case, the complainant had taken the initiative to file affidavits clarifying that her initial complaint stemmed from a misunderstanding and that she now sought to put an end to this dispute. The Court expressed the view that, under such circumstances, there would be no purpose in continuing with the trial, as it would likely end in acquittal, thereby wasting substantial public resources.
Acknowledging the seriousness of the case, the Court stated it was nevertheless inclined to quash the entire criminal proceeding which are subject matter of the writ petition as no useful purpose would be served in prosecuting the petitioner any further.
In view of above facts, reasons and analysis the Court said it had “no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue against the petitioner the same will be abuse of process of law.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the entire criminal proceedings, including the order taking cognizance and the chargesheet in connection with the case under ST/SC jurisdiction.
Case Title: Sunil Tiwari @ Sunil Kumar Tiwari vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr