Sukhdeo Sao v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.
Case brief
What is this about?
In this criminal revision, the High Court set aside the lower court's non-speaking order rejecting a discharge application. The Court held the trial court failed to discuss record materials to satisfy the existence of a prima facie case for charging the accused under sections 468 and 420 of the IPC.
What did the court decide?
Impugned order dated 29.01.2013 set aside; matter remitted to trial court to pass a fresh speaking order discussing materials.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 474 of 2013
Sukhdeo Sao
.… Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. .... Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Sahani For the State : A.P.P
06/Dated: 07/10/2014
This criminal revision application has been directed against the order dated 29.01.2013, passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in complaint case no. C-885 of 2010, T.R. No.274 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the petition under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge, preferred on behalf of the petitioner has been rejected.
2 . The brief facts of the case is that the complainant Kuleshwar Sao had filed a complaint petition bearing no.509 of 2009 in the Court of CJM, Hazaribagh which was sent to the police under Sections 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. On the basis of which Patratu P.S.Case no.121 of 2009 was registered under Sections 468 and 420 of the IPC and after investigation police submitted final form on 28.02.2010. On notice the informant filed protest petition and after inquiry cognizance was taken on 17.9.2011 under the aforesaid sections by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower court failed to satisfy itself that a prima facie case existed before framing charges by issuing a non-speaking order.
Whether the dispute in the complaint packet is of a civil nature and lacks the ingredients to attract offences under sections 468 and 420 of the IPC.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Sukhdeo Sao
- respondent
The State of Jharkhand
Coram
Amitav K. Gupta
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Jharkhand HC
- Decided on
- · October
- Registered
- Case no.
- Cr.Rev./474/2013
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court