Dr. Mani Bhushan Prasad v. The State of Jharkhand

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORDERS ----------- Cr. Revision Nos.1000 and 1052 of 2022 1 CAV On 12.06.2026 Pronounced on 29/06/2026

1. Heard Mr. Mohit Prakash and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respective parties as well as learned counsel for the State assisted by Mr. Dwarika Singh in person and Mrs. Anupama Kaushal, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2.

2. Both the above criminal revisions are arising out of common order, hence are heard together and being disposed of by common order.

3. Instant criminal revisions have been preferred against the order dated

05.08.2022 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla in connection with Complaint Case No.22 of 1996 wherein Cr. Application Nos.986 and 987 of 2022 filed by the petitioners under section 245 of Cr.P.C. to discharge them from the accusation levelled against them have been rejected by the concerned trial court. Factual Matrix:-

4. Factual matrix giving rise to these revisions is that the complainant, Dwarika Singh has lodged a complaint case stating inter alia that in the night of 22.01.1996 at about 9:00 pm, his wife felt abdominal pain. Thereafter, the complainant visited to Sadar Hospital, Gumla and came to know that Dr. Mani Bhushan was at night duty but he was not present in the hospital, then the informant went to the residence of Dr. Mani Bhushan and requested him for providing a vehicle of the hospital to bring his wife to the hospital, but he refused and suggested the Cr. Revision Nos.1000 and 1052 of 2022 2 complainant to visit Dr. Jemma Lakra, but on request, she also refused to provide a hospital vehicle. It is further alleged that due to delay in treatment, the wife of the complainant started bleeding while she was carrying a pregnancy of four months. The complainant made communication with DDC, Gumla, who provided his own car and the complainant brought his wife to Sadar Hospital and admitted for her treatment. It is further alleged that Dr. Jemma Lakra had clinically examined the complainant’s wife and told that pregnancy has been terminated and rest cleaning will be started from next morning and she also prescribed some medicines. The complainant purchased medicines and injections as prescribed and after giving injection and medicines to the complainant’s wife, Dr. Jemma Lakra went to her own residence. On the next day at about 10:30 am, Dr. Jemma Lakra along with Dr. Akhauri Durga Nandan Prasad visited the complainant’s wife and asked the complainant to fill and sign a Risk Bond. Then, the complainant went out to bring medicines. In the meantime, the wife of the complainant was also pressurized to sign a Risk Bond but she refused then Dr. Lakra abused her. It is further alleged that when the complainant returned and was asking Dr. Lakra regarding misbehave with his wife then Dr. Akhauri Durga Nandan Prasad started abusing him and pointed out pistol towards chest of the complainant and took Cr. Revision Nos.1000 and 1052 of 2022 3 out Rs.5,000/- from his pocket and dashed him out of the hospital premises.

5. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla after conducting inquiry under section 202 of Cr.P.C summoned the accused persons vide order dated 03.02.2014 for commission of offences under sections 323, 504 and 379 of IPC. The petitioner, Mani Bhushan Prasad filed Cr.M.P. No.2821 of 2014 under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the summoning order as well as entire proceeding of the complaint case in which notices were issued to the complainant and the case was fixed for

22.01.2015 and till then further proceeding before trial court was stayed and continued vide order dated 22.04.2016 till the next date of hearing. Later on the petitioner, Mani Bhushan Prasad opted to withdraw his criminal miscellaneous petition, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 31.08.2022. In the meantime, learned trial court vacating the interim order, proceeded to take before charge evidence of the complainant, then discharge petition under section 245 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioners, which were rejected vide order dated

05.08.2022 (herein after called as the impugned order) Submission on behalf of petitioners:-

6. Assailing the impugned order, it is submitted on behalf of petitioner, Dr. Mani Bhushan Prasad in Cr. Revision No.1000 of 2022 that in the entire complaint and sworn affirmation of complainant and the evidence of Cr. Revision Nos.1000 and 1052 of 2022 4 another inquiry witness, no allegation is levelled against him except that he was asked to provide ambulance and he suggested to meet Dr. Jemma Lakra. Therefore, no offence is constituted against him at all. On behalf of petitioners, Dr. Jemma Lakra and Dr. Akhauri Durga Nanda Prasad in Criminal Revision No.1052 of 2022, it is submitted that no ambulance was provided to the complainant for bringing his wife to hospital. Later on, the vehicle was managed by DDC, Gumla. It is simply alleged that the complainant was asked to sign on the Risk Bond and while he went out to bring medicines, his wife was compelled to sign on Risk Bond in his absence and upon refusal, she was abused by Dr. Lakra. The allegation against petitioner, Dr. Akhauri Durga Nandan Prasad is that he whipped out pistol and put on the chest of the complainant and robbed Rs.5,000/-. It is further submitted that the entire case is purely an ornamental story to make the case serious and deliberately. No FIR was lodged. Moreover, the hospital is a public place where several patients and attendants along with staffs remain present at all time but the complainant has examined only his wife as an inquiry witness as well as before charge evidence under section 244 of Cr.P.C. The prosecution evidence if remains un- rebutted and taken to be true on its face value, no conviction could be warranted against the petitioners. Cr. Revision Nos.1000 and 1052 of 2022 5

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that a discharge application in a warrant trial case instituted, otherwise, than a police report requires strong evidence for framing charge. The provision makes a greater responsibility and stringent availability of evidence before charge, constituting the proposed offences for which charge has to be framed. Learned trial court has miserably failed to appreciate before charge evidence adduced in this case and without following the yardsticks laid down under section 245 of Cr.P.C, the discharge petition of the petitioners have been dismissed. All the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court, pertaining to discharge applications under sections 227 and 239 of Cr.P.C, has been considered, which are based on different considerations. Therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside and these matters be remitted back to the concerned trial court for re-hearing and passing fresh orders in accordance with law. Submission on behalf of State and Opp. Parties:-

8. On the other hand, the complainant has appeared in person and argued that the present revision applications are barred by provision of section 397(2) of Cr.P.C being interlocutory order and revisions are not maintainable. Learned trial court has very elaborately considered the rival contentions of the parties in the light of allegations proved against the petitioners and passed very reasoned order, considering the guidelines propounded by Hon’ble Apex Court citing several cases. It is Cr. Revision Nos.1000 and 1052 of 2022 6 trite that at the stage of charge, the court cannot make a roving enquiry or mini-trial as regards truth or falsity of allegations and therefore the proposed defence pleas cannot be looked into at the stage of framing charge or discharge application. The charges can be framed on the basis of strong suspicion for commission of offence against the accused persons. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order calling for any interference in these revisions, which are fit to be dismissed. Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-

9. I have gone through the impugned order passed by learned trial court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side.

10. Before delving 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 :- "Section 244 Cr.P.C.- Evidence for prosecution. (i) 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. (ii) The Magistrate may, on the application of prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing. Cr. Revision Nos.1000 and 1052 of 2022 7 Section 245Cr.P.C-When accused shall be discharged. (i) 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. (ii) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless.”

11. A conjoint reading of Sections 244 and 245 of the Cr.P.C., it clearly transpires that the Magistrate has no power to pass an order under Section 245(i) until he has examined all the witnesses under Section

244. The next rider is that if the evidence of witnesses recorded under Section 244, the Magistrate considers for reasons to be recorded that no case against the accused has been made out which if un-rebutted would warrant his conviction. Therefore, it is mandatory for the Magistrate to consider the evidence before charge adduced by complainant and record a specific finding as to if before charge evidence remains un-rebutted and taken to be true on its face value, no conviction of the accused would be warranted.

12. In view of the above discussion and reasons, I find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners and merits in these revisions. It appears that learned trial court has not considered before Cr. Revision Nos.1000 and 1052 of 2022 8 charge evidence adduced in this case in the light of provisions under section 245 of Cr.P.C rather applied the principles for discharge propounded for dealing with a discharge application under section 239 or 227 of Cr.P.C.

13. Accordingly, the order dated 05.08.2022 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla in connection with Complaint Case No.22 of 1996 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 provisions of law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties without being prejudiced by observations made herein above by this Court. These revisions are allowed.

14. Interim order, if granted earlier in these cases, is vacated.

15. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court concerned through FAX for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Date:29 /06 /2026 Pappu/- N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 30 /06 /2026 Cr. Revision Nos.1000 and 1052 of 2022 9