Subal Chandra v. Chinta Mandalani

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P. : Mr. Amrit Anunay, Advocate C.A.V. On: 12/05/2026 Pronounced On: 10/06/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2.

2. Instant Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated

18.03.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No. 76 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, an application under Section 245 Cr.P.C. for discharge of the accused (petitioners) has been rejected. Factual Matrix:-

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision isthat the present petitioners have fraudulently transferred 39 decimals of land of the complainant on fraudulent misrepresentation but the complainant had consented only for sale of one decimal of land. It is further alleged that the petitioner no. 1 Subal Chandra Mandal called the complainant on the pretext of compromise and indecently assaulted her.

4. The complainant (opposite party no. 2) filed a complaint case which was forwarded to the concerned police station under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. for registration of the case and investigation which was registered as Govindpur P.S. Case No. 288 of 2013 for the offence under Section 420, 376 & 120B of the I.P.C. and after collecting evidence, the investigating officer arrived at conclusion that all the allegations are false. Therefore, police submitted final form and the accused persons were not sent up for trial. Thereafter, complainant filed protest-cum- complaint petition before the concerned Court, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 76 of 2014.

5. After conducting inquiry, the petitioners were summoned for the offence under Sections 420, 354B & 120B of the I.P.C. The petitioners appeared and before charge evidence was taken by the concerned Court. The petitioners filed an application under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. dated 27.07.2018 and its rejoinder was also filed by the complainant on 25.09.2018. The learned Trial Court after hearing the arguments of both parties, dismissed the application and directed the petitioner to appear physically on 30.04.2019 for framing of 2 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 527 of 2019) charge for the offence under Sections 467, 468, 420, 354B & 120B of the I.P.C.

6. The petitioners appeared in obedience to the summons by the learned Trial Court.

7. It appears that the petitioner has not challenged the impugned order by preferring a revision before the Sessions Judge itself and directly approached the Hon'ble High Court, although this revision is very old, hence, taken for hearing. Submission on behalf of the Petitioners:-

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned Court below has miserably failed to decide the discharge application in view of stringent provisions contained in Section 244 and Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. and passed the impugned order taking into consideration the provisions of Section 239 of Cr.P.C. wherein discharge application is filed in a case where chargesheet is filed by police, but this case is triable as a complaint case. Therefore, procedure adopted by learned Trial Court is absolutely unwarranted under law and also, absolutely illegal finding has been recorded by the learned Trial Court which is fit to be set aside and this revision may be allowed. Submission on behalf of the Opp. Parties:-

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 assisted with the learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and has submitted that the learned Trial Court has very wisely and aptly considered the overall materials 3 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 527 of 2019) available against the petitioners as per before charge evidence adduced by the complainant. At this stage of the proceeding, truth or falsity of the allegation could not be entered into. Similarly, probable defence of the accused persons is also not relevant at this stage. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality calling for any interference in this revision which is fit to be dismissed. Analysis, discussion and reasons:-

10. In view of rival contentions of the parties, the only point for consideration in this revision arises as to "whether the impugned order suffers from any illegality or infirmity calling for any interference?"

11. Before dwelling upon adjudication of the above point, it is pertinent to extract the relevant provisions of Sections 244 and 245 Cr.P.C. for better appreciation of the matter, which is as under :- "244. Evidence for prosecution- (1) When, in any warrant- case instituted otherwise than on a police report, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. (2) The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.

245. When accused shall be discharged- (1) If, upon taking all the evidence referred to in section 244, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him. (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage 4 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 527 of 2019) of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless.

12. From bare perusal of aforesaid provision, a duty is cast upon the learned Trial Court to take into consideration the overall evidence adduced before charge under Section 244 of the Cr.P.C. by the complainant and if the same remains un-rebutted, whether conviction of the accused could be warranted, is the test for framing charge against the accused persons. Therefore, while deciding the discharge application, the concerned Court is bound to pass the rigour of the aforesaid provision.

13. It appears thatwhile rejecting the discharge application, the learned Trial Court has observed as under:- "After perusal, I find that in complaint petition the complainant has alleged against all the accused persons that the accused persons fraudulently transferred 39 decimals of land belonging to the complainant, while there was consent for only one decimal. It has further been alleged that the accused Subal Mandal called her the pretext of compromise and misbehaved with her. When I look at the evidence in the light of the above allegation imposed in the complaint petition, I found that both the witnesses have stated in their respective deposition about the same and supported the fact of cheating and misbehave. Here, it is worth mentioning that it is not the stage where it is permissible to appreciate the evidence produced on behalf of the complainant. The Court has to see the evidence, at this stage of the case, just in the light of that prima facie case is made out or not and whether there is ground for presuming that accused persons have committed such offence or not. Therefore, the allegation imposed against the accused persons appears to be true at first sight, which is capable in making the ground for 5 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 527 of 2019) such presumption that accused has committed offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 420, 354B & 120B of the I.P.C."

14. From bare perusal of the reasons recorded by the learned Trial Court, it appears that the stringent provision of Section 245 has not been taken into account which mandates that the entire evidence taken under Section 244 Cr.P.C. would be of such a degree and nature that if remains unrebutted, it would warrant conviction of the accused for the proposed offence levelled against him. Therefore, provision in warrant trial Complaint case for discharge of the accused, the prosecution evidence must be considered at higher pedestal as required by law. Merely, prime facie case and ground for presuming that the accused has committed such offence cannot form basis of framing charge in a complaint case. Therefore, apparently the impugned order does not appear to be in consonance with the provision under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. which was never considered. The Court must observe as to how offence under Section 461, 468, 420, 354B & 120B of the I.P.C. is constituted on the basis of evidence before charge, if the same remains unrebutted.

15. Therefore, I find substance in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and merits in this revision application. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.03.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No. 76 of 2014 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the concerned Trial Court to pass a fresh order in light of the aforesaid observations and 6 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 527 of 2019) provisions of law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties without granting unnecessary adjournments.

18. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is Allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be sent through FAX to the concerned Court for needful and informant. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated:10/06/2026 Rahul/NAFR Uploaded on 11/06/2026 7 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 527 of 2019)