Pandu, District- Palamau v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Anand Kumar Pandey, 3. Krishna Kumar Pandey, both
Case Details
Cr. M.P. No.1967 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1967 of 2023 ------ Sidhi Nath Pandey, aged about 81 years, son of Late Samol Pandey, resident of Village + PO + PS : Pandu, District- Palamau … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Anand Kumar Pandey, 3. Krishna Kumar Pandey, both sons of son of Late Udaibhan Pandey, No.2 & 3 are residents of Village + PO + PS : Pandu, District- Palamau Opposite Parties ------ … For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P. Nos.2 & 3
Legal Reasoning
: Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate Mr. Anand Kr. Pandey, Advocate : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, Addl. P.P. : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 05.04.2023 (wrongly mentioned as 05.0.2023 at first page of order-sheet) passed by Judicial Magisrate-1st Class, Palamau in Complaint Case No.220 of 2008 whereby the petition dated 27.02.2023 filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for making some of the documents as Exhibits, has been rejected with cost of Rs.2,000/-. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is the complainant of Complaint Case No.220 of 2008. Vide order dated 05.04.2023, the learned trial court allowed the prayer of the accused persons of the case to mark as Ext. 1 Cr. M.P. No.1967 of 2023 seven number of documents. In rebuttal of those documents, the petitioner prayed that the following documents be exhibited:- (1) the certified copy of the return in the name of Pandey Amrit Ram filed in Compensation Case No.2-60-61 dated 12.08.1996 of Mouza- Kuliya; (2) attested copy of S.M. Case No.120/69-70 of Mouza- Kuliya in the name of Udaybhan Pandey and Shyam Kishore Pandey; (3) certified copy of attested copy of forged M Form; and (4) the certified copy of the deposition of the witness of the accused person namely Md. Iliyas in Title Suit No.45 of 1997. Out of which the documents at serial Nos.1 to 2 were already in record but could not be marked exhibit because of oversight and the document at serial No.3 was sought to be admitted in evidence and exhibited. The learned Judicial Magistrate observed that the complainant is merely lingering trial of the case and has not mentioned any reason as to what is the significance and need to get these documents exhibited and why he has filed the documents at belated stage not before 22.07.2022 i.e., the date of closing of after charge evidence of the complaint and the complainant has provided no justification as to why he has not filed these documents during the evidence stage when he came in possession of the evidence and rejected the petition with cost of Rs.2,000/-. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the complainant is that the joint property which is the ancestral land, has been inherited by the complainant and he is in peaceful possession thereof. Rent was determined in favour of the petitioner and his brother. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 who are the accused persons of the said case got a proceeding initiated under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of the portions of the land 2 Cr. M.P. No.1967 of 2023 vide Misc. Case No.748 of 1995. In their show-cause, they based their claim on a proceeding vide S.M. Case No.120 of 1969-70 and submitted a forged document. The father of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and the accused No.1 of the said complaint case sold the land on the basis of forged document to several persons by referring to an order passed in S.M. Case No.120 of 1969-70. The petitioner filed Misc. Case No.44 of 1995 in the court of Additional Collector against the accused No.1 and father of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and other purchasers. After inquiry, a report was submitted on 23.09.1996 wherein it was observed that the copy of order of S.M. Case No.120 of 1969-70 was forged and on the basis of order passed by the Additional Collector, the Circle Officer, Bishrampur stayed the Jamabandi created in favour of accused persons. The petitioner filed Title Suit No.45 of 1997 which was decreed in favour of the petitioner and the said judgment and decree in title suit has been affirmed in Second Appeal No.157 of 2020. It is next submitted that the learned trial court has adopted two different yardsticks for admitting documents in evidence in respect of the petition filed by the petitioner and the accused persons. It is next submitted that the learned Magistrate misdirected itself in not going through the contents of the petition dated 27.02.2023 which is a detailed one and the petitioner has quoted the circumstances under which he was compelled to make such prayer to bring certain documents being of impeachable character and old documents on record. It is next submitted that after closure of the evidence though the trial court allowed the defence to bring in evidence the documents in exercise of the power under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. but rejected outrightly the prayer of the complainant-petitioner to mark the said documents as exhibit; without considering the relevance and 3 Cr. M.P. No.1967 of 2023 requirement of the documents for just decision of the case. It is further submitted that after the order dated 05.01.2023 when the petitioner tried to obtain the certified copy of the documents through an application dated 09.02.2023, the same were not provided by the Copying Department stating that no exhibit document of accused is available on record but upon inspection of the record of Complaint Case No.220 of 2008, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that forged documents were admitted in evidence vide order dated 05.01.2023 which requires rebuttal. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 05.04.2023 (wrongly mentioned as 05.0.2023 at first page of order-sheet) passed by Judicial Magisrate-1st Class, Palamau in Complaint Case No.220 of 2008 whereby the petition dated 27.02.2023 filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for making some of the documents as Exhibits, has been rejected with cost of Rs.2,000/-, be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer for quashing and setting aside the order dated 05.04.2023 (wrongly mentioned as 05.0.2023 at first page of order-sheet) passed by Judicial Magisrate-1st Class, Palamau in Complaint Case No.220 of 2008 whereby the petition dated 27.02.2023 filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for making the said documents as Exhibits, has been rejected with cost of Rs.2,000/- and submit that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the object underlying Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in 4 Cr. M.P. No.1967 of 2023 bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving any ambiguity in the statement of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinatory factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; is not limited only to the benefit of the accused as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case Vijay Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2011) 8 SCC 136. 7. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Palamau has not taken the pains to refer the grounds set out in the petition dated 27.02.2023 nor it has even considered how the documents sought to be admitted in evidence which has not even been referred to in the order dated 05.04.2023, is not necessary for the just decision of the case. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the order dated 05.04.2023 (wrongly mentioned as 05.0.2023 at first page of order-sheet) passed by Judicial Magisrate-1st Class, Palamau in Complaint Case No.220 of 2008 whereby the petition dated 27.02.2023 filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for making the said documents as Exhibits, has been rejected with cost of Rs.2,000/-, is not sustainable in law. 8. Accordingly, the order dated 05.04.2023 (wrongly mentioned as 05.0.2023 at first page of order-sheet) passed by Judicial Magisrate-1st Class, Palamau in Complaint Case No.220 of 2008 whereby the petition dated 27.02.2023 filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for making some of the documents as Exhibits, has been rejected with cost of Rs.2,000/-, is quashed and set aside. 9. The Judicial Magisrate-1st Class, Palamau is directed to pass a fresh order; in respect of the petition dated 27.02.2023; by considering whether the documents sought to exhibited are admissible in evidence and relevant to the 5 Cr. M.P. No.1967 of 2023 case and whether they are required for the just decision of the case; and if the answers is in affirmative; then to get the said documents exhibited in accordance with law. 10. 11.
Decision
In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the cost as required for sending the order of this Court by FAX to the court concerned. 12. In case, required cost is deposited by the petitioner, Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through FAX, forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 04th of September, 2023 AFR/ Animesh 6