Criminal revision filed to quash the High Court order dismissing the petitioners' revision against the trial court's rejection of a discharge petition. The Court found the allegations were criminal and devoid of merit, dismissing the revision.
The petition to quash the order rejecting the discharge petition is dismissed.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2425 of 2013
... … Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mrs. Vandana Singh, Advocate Ms. Poonam Verma, Advocate -----
Order No. 09 Dated: 01.02.2019
The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.07.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Revision No. 100 of 2013, whereby the order dated 18.05.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro rejecting the discharge petition of the petitioners filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. in connection with Chas P.S. Case No. 29 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. No. 235 of 2009 has been upheld. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned orders dated 24.07.2013 and 18.05.2013. On perusal of the order dated 24.07.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Revision No. 100 of 2013 preferred by the petitioners, it appears that an F.I.R. being Chas P.S. Case No. 29 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. No. 235 of 2009 was registered on the basis of the fardbeyan of the opposite party no. 2. The police after investigation of the case found the same true and submitted the chargesheet, in pursuance of which the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 406/420 I.P.C. against the petitioners. On appreciation of the fact collected by the police during the investigation, the learned revisional court came to a finding that as per the case of the complainant, the petitioner made a false promise for providing another shop by receiving Rs. 1,50,000/- from him. The contention raised by the petitioner in the revision petition that the allegations are merely of civil nature has not been accepted
2
by the learned Sessions Judge on the given facts of the case and thus, the petitioners’ revision petition has been dismissed. 3. I see no infirmity in the impugned order dated 24.07.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Revision No. 100 of 2013 so as to interfere with the same. The present petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Manish
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Sessions Judge's order dismissing the revision petition regarding the rejection of a discharge petition.
Whether the allegations of giving a false promise to receive money constitute civil or criminal offences under Sections 406/420 IPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Surendra Choudhary
Vikram Aditya Choudhary
The State of Jharkhand
Md. Shabiruddin
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court