Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice To Jharkhand Police Officers For Filing Chargesheet Violating Interim Order

Amisha Shrivastava

1 Oct 2024 10:18 PM IST

  • Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice To Jharkhand Police Officers For Filing Chargesheet Violating Interim Order
    Listen to this Article

    The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 1) issued a contempt notice to three officers of the Jharkhand Police for filing a charge sheet in a case despite an interim order by the Court barring any further action in the FIR.

    It is a case of gross contempt of this Court. What oversight? Only reason is the husband of the first informant is IPS officer. That is the only reason”, Justice Oka remarked after the counsel for the state said that this happened due to an oversight.

    A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was dealing with an SLP challenging the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court refusing to quash the FIR filed by wife (now deceased) of an IPS officer against her landlord.

    The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant's husband was the Director General of Police and has now retired.

    The affidavit brings on record a very brazen act on the part of the police department of the state…Shockingly the charge sheet refers to the interim order pass by this court. Officer of the level of Deputy Superintendent of Police has brazenly filed the counter claiming that charge sheet has been filed on 30th September 2023. Filing of charge sheet and justifying filing of char sheet is wilful breach of interim order dated 18th August 2023”, the Court noted, after perusing the counter affidavit filed by the state.

    We may add here that the husband of the complainant was an IPS officer at the relevant time”, the Court recorded.

    Justice Oka said that the police acted in wilful disobedience of the Court's interim order dated August 18, 2023. This order explicitly restrained the police from taking further action in connection with the FIR registered at Lower Bazar Police Station, Ranchi.

    Despite the Court's direction, a charge sheet was filed on September 30, 2023, by officers Dayanand Kumar, Station House Officer (SHO), and Tarkeshwar Prasad Kesari, Investigating Officer (IO). The charge sheet referenced the interim order but was still filed, the Court highlighted.

    The Court observed that the filing of the charge sheet and its justification by Deepak Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP), Ranchi, who filed the counter-affidavit, constituted a wilful breach of the order.

    The Court also found another instance of contempt, noting that a proclamation against the petitioner had been published in newspapers on April 20, 2023 pursuant to a trial court order dated April 10, 2023. However, an HC interim order from April 2017, also restraining coercive action, was still in effect at that time, the Court noted.

    The Supreme Court issued contempt notices to DySP Deepak Kumar, SHO Dayanand Kumar, and IO Tarkeshwar Prasad Kesari returnable on November 4, 2024. The Court directed that the notice be served through the District Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, and that the three officers appear personally before the Court on the scheduled date.

    Issue notice of contempt to Shri Deepak Kumar Deputy Superintendent of Police City Ranchi, Dayanand Kumar who was at the relevant time attached to Lower Bazar Police station Ranchi and Tarkeshwar Prasad Kesari was also attached to the Lower Bazar Police station Ranchi. Notice is made returnable on Monday 4th November 2024…The three officers shall personally remain present before this Court on the next date”, the Court ordered.

    The case arises from a landlord-tenant dispute, where the tenant, the wife of the then DGP, filed an FIR against the landlord's family. The FIR alleged that on multiple occasions, the landlord's family and others forcibly entered her residence, damaged property, and physically assaulted her, including dragging her in a half-naked condition from her apartment. The landlord's side argued that the tenant had not been paying rent and that the eviction process was lawfully initiated through the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. However, the tenant filed the criminal case as a retaliatory action, according to the landlord.

    Case no. – Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 9859/2023

    Case Title – Satish Kumar Ravi v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.

    Next Story