1. Sushil Joshi 2. Ajay Pandey 3. Manish Pandey v. 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Md. Tanvir
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2637 of 2020 1. Sushil Joshi 2. Ajay Pandey 3. Manish Pandey Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Md. Tanvir -------- ..... … Petitioners ..... … Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
this court in Cr.M.P. No. 674 of 2015 and the said Cr.M.P. was allowed considering that the petitioners were not heard by the learned revisional court and the matter was remitted back to take a decision in accordance -2- with law after providing the opportunity of hearing. During the pendency of the said revision petition, the complainant filed a petition to withdraw the complaint petition, which is contained in Annexure-3 stating that he does not want to proceed further in the matter, as the compromise is there, however, the learned court has been pleased to pass the order. In the order of the learned revisional court it has been recorded in para-12 about the compromise petition of withdrawal, however, the revisional court has passed the order and thereafter the learned counsel has been pleased to take cognizance by order dated 22.01.2020. 8. Once the learned court has not taken the cognizance and on remand he has taken the cognizance against all the accused persons, at least the prima facie new material is required to be disclosed in the order taking cognizance, which is lacking in the order taking cognizance dated 22.01.2020. Further what are the prima facie materials are there, are also not disclosed in the order taking cognizance and the learned court has only stated that after perusing the solemn affirmation and evidences of the inquiry witnesses, he has taken the cognizance. 9. In view of the above background and looking into the order taking cognizance, it appears that the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance mechanically upon the remand order of the learned revisional court. 10. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 22.01.2020, by which, cognizance for the offence under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners, in connection with Complaint Case No. 529 of 2010, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma, is hereby, set aside. 11. 12.
Arguments
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ : : ------ 09/ 06.05.2024 Notice upon the O.P. No. 2 has been effected, however, till Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate. Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P. For the Petitioners For the State date, nobody has appeared on behalf of the O.P. No. 2. Identical was the situation on 20.09.2022 and with a view to provide an opportunity to the O.P. No.2, the matter was adjourned in anticipation of his appearance. The matter was again adjourned on 04.01.2023 by way of last chance and the matter was further adjourned on 22.04.2024 that’s why in absence of O.P. No. 2, the matter is being heard on merits in absence of O.P. No. 2. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 3. Prayer in this petition is made for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 22.01.2020, by which, cognizance for the offence under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners, in connection with Complaint Case No. 529 of 2010, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma. 4. O.P. No. 2 filed a complaint being Complaint Case No. 529 of 2010 against six accused persons including the petitioners on allegations that the lands under Khata No. 339 in village-Gomo is his ancestral land and the accused persons attempted to grab the said land. He could come to know that the accused No. 1 sold the lands to Manoj Kumar and Jai Shankar Prasad. He also could come to know that on 04.08.2010, four sale deeds were executed and the lands appertaining to plot No. 5309 under Khata No. 339 was sold illegally. 5. Mr. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that by order dated 29.08.2011, the learned Chief Judicial -1- Magistrate, Koderma has taken the cognizance against one Sk. Asmat Ali, who is accused No. 1 only. He submits that the O.P. No. 2 preferred one Cr. Rev. No. 95 of 2011 against the said order. He further submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Koderma allowed the said revision directing the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma to take cognizance under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons. He submits that aggrieved by that order, the petitioners challenged the said order before this court in Cr.M.P. No. 674 of 2015, wherein the said Cr.M.P. was allowed considering that the petitioners were not heard by the learned revisional court and the matter was remitted back to take a decision in accordance with law after providing the opportunity of hearing. He further submits that during the pendency of the revision petition, the complainant filed a petition, which is contained in Annexure-3 stating that he does not want to proceed further in the matter, as the compromise is there. He also submits that in spite of that the learned revisional court has been pleased to pass order directing the learned court to take cognizance and thereafter the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioners and others. He further submits that in absence of any particular allegation against the petitioners in the case, the cognizance has been taken. He also submits that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 are not here in the present case. 6. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance on the remand of the learned revisional court. 7. It is an admitted position that the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance against accused No. 1 by order dated 29.08.2011 and the said order was challenged by the complainant before the learned Sessions Judge in Cr. Rev. No. 95 of 2011, which was allowed by order dated 27.03.2014 directing the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma to take cognizance under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons. The said order of the learned revisional court was challenged before
Decision
As such, this petition is disposed of. It is made clear that this court has not quashed the cognizance order so far as accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are concerned and the learned court will proceed against them in accordance with law. Amitesh/- (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) -3-