1. Saroj Kumar Baxi @ Saroj Kumar Bakshi, aged about-69 years, 2. Ranjan Kumar v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Pankaj Kumar Baxi @ Pankaj Kumar Bakshi, Son
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3960 of 2022 ------ 1. Saroj Kumar Baxi @ Saroj Kumar Bakshi, aged about-69 years, 2. Ranjan Kumar, aged about-56 years, Both are sons of Late Nand Kishore Pd., Resident of – Tandwa, P.O. and P.S.- Tandwa, District- Chatra. 3. Lalit Kumar, aged about- 53 years, Son of Late Nand Kishore Pd., Resident of Sheopuri Chowk, P.S.- Sadar, P.O. and District- Hazaribag … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Pankaj Kumar Baxi @ Pankaj Kumar Bakshi, Son of late Nawal Kishore Prasad, Resident of village- Raham, P.O. & P.S.- Tandwa, Opposite Parties District- Chatra … ------ For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No.2.
Legal Reasoning
interference of this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court is satisfied that the only ground agitated before the revisional court by the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate erred in passing the order dated 06.09.2021 by arriving at the finding that there is no material in the discharge petition. It has not been agitated before the revisional court as to what exact error the learned Magistrate committed in passing the order dated 06.09.2021; rather emphasis was given before the revisional court that the learned Magistrate has mentioned in the order dated 06.09.2021 in M.C.A. No.1631 of 2019 that cognizance has been taken in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code though in fact the cognizance was taken in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 418, 467, 120B of the Indian Penal Code; hence, the order dated 06.09.2021 is shrouded with doubts. 4 Cr. M.P. No.3960 of 2022 8. Since no specific plea as to in what manner the error has been committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, was agitated before the revisional court, so obviously there was no requirement for the revisional court to delve deep into the facts of the case and the revisional court has addressed the discrepancy in the cognizance of the offences as mentioned in the said order dated 06.09.2021 by the learned Judicial Magistrate by clarifying that the later part of the order, in which it has been mentioned that vide order dated 04.04.2017, cognizance was taken under Sections 406, 420, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code is a typographical error and in fact the cognizance has been taken under Sections 418, 467, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 9. In this backdrop, this Court do not find any illegality having been committed by the revisional court in passing the order dated 02.04.2022 in Criminal Revision No.50 of 2021, warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 10. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 03rd of July, 2024 AFR/ Animesh 5 Cr. M.P. No.3960 of 2022
Arguments
: Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Diwakar Jha, Advocate : Ms. Amrita Kumari, Addl.P.P. : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Amritansh Vats, 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 02.04.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.50 of 2021 whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra has dismissed the Criminal Revision which was filed against the order dated 06.09.2021 passed in M.C.A. No.1631 of 2019 arising out of Complaint Case 1 Cr. M.P. No.3960 of 2022 No.753 of 2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Chatra rejecting the prayer for discharge of the petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant/opposite party No.2 lodged Complaint Case No.753 of 2016 in which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Chatra took cognizance; vide order dated 04.04.2017 against the petitioners, for having committed the offences punishable under Section 418, 467 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner filed a petition for discharge. The same was rejected vide order dated 06.09.2021. In the said order, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Chatra inadvertently in penultimate paragraph of the order, has mentioned that the said court took cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 406, 420, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 04.04.2017. In the top paragraph of the said internal page-2 of the order which is at running page-45 of the brief, it has been categorically mentioned that cognizance has been taken against the petitioners on 04.04.2017 under Sections 418, 467 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Before the revisional court in Criminal Revision No.50 of 2021 two grounds were agitated; (i) (ii) one is that the Magistrate erred in passing the order of rejecting the prayer for discharge erroneously and erroneously arrived at the finding that there is no material in the discharge petition; and the second is that as in the penultimate paragraph of the said order it has been mentioned that the cognizance has been taken under Sections 406, 420, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was submitted before the revisional court that as the same creates doubt, hence, the prayer was made before the revisional court to direct 2 Cr. M.P. No.3960 of 2022 the learned Magistrate to modify the order rejecting the prayer for discharging the revisionist in Complaint Case No.753 of 2016. 4. The learned Sessions Judge considering the rival submissions made at the Bar came to the conclusion that the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Chatra rightly took cognizance against the accused persons under Sections 418, 467, 120B of the Indian Penal Code but due to typographical error and oversight in the operating portion of the order dated 06.09.2021, it has been mentioned that the cognizance has been taken under Sections 406, 420, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code in place of being mentioned that cognizance has been taken in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 418, 467, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and by thus observing, dismissed the Criminal Revision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the before charge evidence, the complainant admitted in his deposition that he has received Rs.90,00,000/- as compensation for six (6) acres of land. It is next submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are false and no offence is made out; even if the allegations made in the complaint and the materials collected during the course of inquiry is accepted to be true in their entirety and the same at the most, establishes existence of some civil dispute. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer made in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners and submit that since before the revisional court no specific ground was taken by the revisionist as to in what manner the 3 Cr. M.P. No.3960 of 2022 order dated 06.09.2021 was erroneous on its merit, hence, there was no occasion for the revisional court to discuss in detail the materials available in the record and the revisional court has only mentioned that on perusal of the testimony of the enquiry witnesses, the Sessions Judge was satisfied that the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Chatra has rightly taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 418, 467, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that there being no illegality in the revisional order, the same do not warrant