The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a criminal revision seeking to set aside the order of cognizance taken only under IPC 323/506, upholding that the complaint lacked ingredients for other sections.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 320 of 2016
Mahendra Rawani .... Petitioner
Versus
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
--For the Petitioners :Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the State :Mr. Amresh Kumar, A.P.P. Order No. 06 Dated 13th June 2016
Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State.
In this application, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 12.02.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 1963 of 2015 by which cognizance has been taken only u/s 323/506 I.P.C. and not u/s 341, 379, 380, 385, 452 and 34 I.P.C. which according to the petitioner is made out against the opposite party No. 2.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the complaint petition itself opposite party No. 2 had forcibly entered into the premises of the petitioner and on the pretext of checking the vehicle had obtained the key of the vehicle and had taken away the same. Learned counsel further submits that there was demand of extortion which would be evident from the complaint petition and in such circumstance therefore Section 384 I.P.C. is clearly made out. It has further been submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate has traveled beyond his jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the offence only u/s 323/506 I.P.C. and not u/s 341, 379, 380, 385, 452, 34 I.P.C. without recording any finding.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate after considering the complaint petition as well as the statement of the complainant on S.A. and the enquiry witnesses rightly took cognizance only u/s 323/506 I.P.C., as no offence under the other sections, as has been leveled by the petitioner, has been found to be made out.
It appears that the opposite party No. 2 is the Chief Manager of the State Bank of India, Hirapur Branch, Dhanbad. The entire dispute as it appears from the complaint is with respect to taking of loan by the
wife of the complainant. It also appears from the complaint petition that the key of the vehicle was given to the accused persons on their asking by the complaint and subsequently it has been stated that the complainant was assaulted by the accused persons and had forcibly taken away the vehicle. The entire allegation made in the complaint petition primarily revolves around the allegation of assault made upon the complainant by the accused persons and pursuant to the same cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable u/s 323/506 I.P.C. The ingredients of sections 379, 380, 385 and 452 I.P.C. are sorely lacking in the complaint petition itself and in such circumstances therefore no illegality or error has been committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in the impugned order.
This criminal revision application is accordingly dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
MK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the learned Judicial Magistrate was wrong in taking cognizance only under Sections 323 and 506 IPC and not under other sections alleged in the complaint.
Mahendra Rawani
The State of Jharkhand
Abhay Kumar
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
