Gyan Chand Rai v. Bhagirath Sharma

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate : Mrs. Amrita Kumari, A.P.P. : Mr. Shahid Khan, 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

15.09.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih in Complaint Case No. 606 of 2009, whereby and whereunder, discharge of the accused (petitioners) has been once again rejected. Factual Matrix:-

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that a complaint case was instituted by the opposite party no. 2 stating inter alia that on

16.05.2009 at about 7:00 P.M., the accused persons (petitioners) variously armed with weapons had arrived at the factory of the complainant and assaulted the sons of the complainant. It is also alleged that the accused persons have taken away machineries worth rupees five lakhs (Rs. 5,00,000/-) and also raw materials and finished products worth rupees eight lakhs (Rs. 8,00,000/-) It is further alleged that the name of the factory was also deleted and replaced by the name of accused Prakash Chandra Jain.

4. After conducting inquiry the complaint case, being Complaint Case No. 606 of 2009 instituted by the complainant, summons were issued against the accused persons including these petitioners for the offences under Sections 379, 342, 447, 506, 426/34 of the I.P.C.

5. The petitioners and accused persons appeared in obedience to the summons.

6. The complainant also adduced evidence before charge examining some witnesses, thereafter, an application for discharge was filed by the petitioners, which was rejected vide order dated

09.12.2016 which was assailed in Cr. Revision No. 238 of 2017 before this Court and a co-ordinate bench of this Court disposed of that Cr. Revision vide order dated 13.08.2018 and the matter was remitted back to pass afresh order in accordance with law and upon remand, the impugned order has been passed. 2 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1820 of 2018) Submission on behalf of the Petitioners:-

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned Trial Court 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. relating to warrant cases instituted otherwise than on police report. The framing of charge for an offence against the accused persons is a serious matter and in the complaint case, the grounds for framing charge stands on higher pedestal than the cases instituted before police and charge-sheet submitted after investigation of the case. The material evidence in the complaint cases of higher veracity is required for framing the charge and the provision prescribed under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. is that, if the Magistrate after taking all the evidences recorded under Section 244 of the Cr.P.C. as produced by the complainant, finds that if the evidence of witnesses remains un-rebutted would warrant conviction of the accused person, then alone, it is a fit case for framing charge. It is further submitted that it is admitted by the complainant witnesse examined under Section 244 Cr.P.C. namely Manjit, that a proceeding under Section 147 Cr.P.C. was initiated between the parties and the factory was seized and possession thereof was given to Prakash Chandra Jain. Therefore, on the date of alleged occurrence, Prakash Chandra Jain was himself in possession of the factory. Therefore, no question of theft of materials arises. The learned Trial Court without discussing the evidence before charge available on record had out rightly rejected discharge petition of the petitioners which suffers from serious error of law and liable to be set aside and this revision 3 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1820 of 2018) may be allowed. Submission on behalf of the Opp. Parties:-

8. 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 wisely and aptly discussed the overall material available on record and recorded clear cut findings showing involvement of the present petitioners in the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that on earlier occasion, discharge petition of the petitioners were dismissed vide order dated 09.12.2016 and the same was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court under Cr. Revision No. 238 of 2017 wherein, vide order dated 13.08.2018, the revision was allowed and the matter was remitted back for passing fresh order setting aside the impugned order. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has made a detailed discussion towards the evidence before charge and rightly dismissed the discharge application of the petitioner which suffers from no illegality calling for any interference in this revision which is fit to be dismissed. Analysis, discussion and reasons:-

9. I have gone through the impugned order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both the parties. It appears that against the earlier rejection of discharge application filed by the petitioners, there was specific observation of this Court to properly consider the evidence before charge and pass appropriate order afresh after giving opportunity to both sides but again the learned Trial Court has ignored 4 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1820 of 2018) the provision of Sections 244 and 245 Cr.P.C., which is extracted herein under for better appreciation of the matter; - "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 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 of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless.

10. 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. It appears that the learned Trial Court has nowhere whispered about the relevant provision for discharge in complaint case which pertains to warrant trial case and simply discussed the name of culprits disclosed in the evidence of witnesses 5 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1820 of 2018) without going to the core evidence of witnesses towards the facts of the case for deciding what offence has been committed by the accused persons. The prescribed guideline under Section 245 Cr.P.C. has been ignored by the learned Trial Court while disposing of the application.

11. Therefore, I find substance in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and merits in this revision application. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.09.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih in Complaint Case No. 606 of 2009 is, hereby, set aside and the matter is again 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 granting unnecessary adjournments.

14. 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 6 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1820 of 2018)