IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 2980 of 2023 ------- 1. Dr. Satyaprakash, aged 40 years old, son of Vishnudev Yadav, resident of Khagaria, P.O., P.S. & District Khagaria, Bihar. 2. Kumar Bhushan Sinha @ Kumar Bhusan Sinha, aged 64 years old, son of Hardeo Prasad, resident of Balwapur, Amanwan, P.O., P.S. & District Nalanda, Bihar. …... …. Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Reeta Devi, W/o of Late Shankar Prasad Gupta, resident of Gullibhatta, P.O. Sahebganj, P.S. Sahebganj (Nagar), District Sahebganj. .…. …. Opp. Parties -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH -------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P. For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Sanjay Lal, Advocate -------- 10/ Dated 17.03.2025 Petitioners have filed this criminal miscellaneous petition for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 24.02.2022, in connection with Sahibganj Rail P.S. Case No.07/2020 corresponding to SBG/GRPS Case No. 7/2020 Railway G.R. No.19/2020, in which, cognizance has been taken under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the opposite party No.2 is that on 10.01.2017, at about 11:00 p.m, some women came to her house and informed her that her husband Shankar Prasad Gupta was lying in an injured condition near the western gate of the railway line. The opposite party No.2 went there and found her husband lying in an injured condition. Thereafter, he was admitted to the hospital and later on, her husband died. The allegation levelled against some of the the accused persons is that they had assaulted the deceased, due to which, he succumbed to his injuries. As far as the petitioners are concerned, they are the doctors and pharmacist, who had treated the husband of the opposite party No.2 in the hospital. It appears that after investigation, the police submitted final form in this case, but the learned Magistrate did not accept the final form and took cognizance of the offences under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. -2- Learned A.P.P, appearing on behalf of the State has produced the case diary and from perusal of which, it appears that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence to suggest that the husband of the opposite party No.2 was assaulted and pushed from a running train. He has also pointed out that at paragraph-44 of the case diary, it is mentioned that the husband of opposite party No.2 was hospitalized for the treatment of his backache. It has also been mentioned at paragraph-44 of the case diary that no injury was found on the person of the deceased. Mr. Sabyasanchi, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no postmortem was performed on the dead body of the deceased. He has further submitted that the police has recorded the statement of one Mangal Modi, who was present at the platform at the time of occurrence and he has stated that the husband of the complainant fell from a train, due to which, he sustained injuries. Considering the entire gamut of the prosecution case, it appears that no case under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 24.02.2022 qua the petitioners is quashed. This criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. (Ambuj Nath, J.) BS/-