Remanded

Arjun Pandit And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC6 Sept 2016Cr.Rev./270/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand quashed an order rejecting a discharge application. The court held that the lower Judicial Magistrate failed to address a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of a private complaint under Section 195 CrPC. The matter was remanded to pass a reasoned order on this issue within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 27.01.2011 is quashed; matter remanded to the lower court to pass a reasoned order within 2 weeks on the maintainability of the private complaint.

Arjun Pandit And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 270 of 2011

¶2

1.Arjun Pandit

¶3

2.Shambhu Pandit both are sons of Shri Balgobind Pandit, resident of Sakin Vidhapuri Ward No. 7, PO, PS & Town Jhumari Telaiya, District Koderma … …

¶4

… … Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶7

2.Raj Kishore Prasad S/o Late Mohan Prasad resident of Sakin Vidhapuri Ward No. 7, PO, PS & Town Jhumari Telaiya, District Koderma … … Opposite Parties

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶9

For the Petitioners : Mr. Pramod Kumar Pankaj, Advocate For the Opposite Party No. 1 : Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, A.P.P. For the Opposite Party No. 2 : None

¶10

9/06.09.2016 Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar Pankaj, learned counsel for the petitioners & Mr. H. P. Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

¶11

This application has been directed against the order dated 27.01.2011 passed by Sri M. C. Narayan, learned J. M. 1^st class, Koderma in Criminal Complaint No. C- 570 of 2005 in which the discharge application preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.

¶12

It has been submitted that the proceeding under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. was initiated against the petitioner in which a forged document was submitted which led to submission of a private complaint by one of the parties under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. He submits that in view of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. since it was a case of forgery, no private complaint is maintainable which fact does not have properly been appreciated while rejecting the application for discharge vide impugned order dated 27.01.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to a case of “Mahesh Tiwari Vs. State of U. P. and another” passed by Allahabad High Court.

¶13

Mr. H. P. Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State supported the impugned order.

¶14

It appears that a preliminary objection has been made by the petitioner with respect to the maintainability of the complaint petition as

¶15

=2=

¶16

under Section 195 of Cr.P.C., the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was the only competent authority to institute a complaint and no complaint by a private person should have been entertained by the learned court below. It appears from the impugned order dated 27.01.2011 that the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner has been noted, but no finding with respect to the same has been given by the learned court below and the learned court below has merely considered the merits of the case without deciding the preliminary objection.

¶17

In such circumstances therefore, the impugned order dated 27.01.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st class, Koderma in C-570 of 2005 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned court below to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and by giving a specific finding with respect to the question of maintainability of the private complaint as has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner by passing a reasoned ordered within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

This application stands allowed.

¶19

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶20

R. Shekhar Cp 3

Arjun Pandit And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Pandit And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhruv Shukla Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Jayant Kumar Akhouri And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Nandu Pandit And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Birju Ravidas Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Anil Kumar And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Ajay Kumar Agrawal Alias Ajay Agrawal Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.