Dismissed

Bikas Haldar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Dec 2019Cr.M.P./322/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging an order under Section 319 CrPC summoning the petitioner to face trial for vehicular accident offenses. The court held that evidence showed the petitioner was driving the vehicle rashly, justifying the magistrate's jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous petition was dismissed without any remedy being granted to the petitioner.

Bikas Haldar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 322 of 2019

¶2

----

¶3

Bikas Haldar @ Deepak Haldar @ Vikash Haldar @ Biksh Haldar

¶4

… Petitioner

¶5

-versus-

¶6

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶7

--- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN ---For the Petitioners : Mr. Kshitish Chandra Mahato, Advocate Mr. Akshay Kumar Mahato, Advocate For the State: A.P.P. ----

¶8

6/ 09.12.2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶9

2 . Petitioner is challenging the order dated 06.12.2017, by which the Court below has allowed the petition under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with G.R. No.1302 of 2015 and directed the petitioner to appear and face trial.

¶10

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there are no materials against the petitioner to exercise jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Magistrate. He submits that what the witnesses have stated is nothing, but afterthought only to implicate the petitioner falsely in this case. He submits that it is the driver, who was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and the petitioner being the owner of the vehicle, has nothing to do with the occurrence, which fact has not been taken into consideration by the Court below.

¶11

4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the witnesses have categorically stated that it is the petitioner, who was driving the vehicle and thus, the Court below has rightly exercised the jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶12

5. After hearing the parties and going through the record, I find that G.R. No.1302 of 2015 was instituted on an FIR being Patamda Police Station Case No.23 of 2015 against unknown person mentioning only driver of the vehicle Tata Magic bearing JH 05 AU 6452 for allegedly committing an offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. During evidence, the witnesses, i.e., P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 have clearly stated that it is this petitioner, who was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Admittedly, this petitioner was not an accused. Since the petitioner was not

¶13

-: 2 :-

¶14

an accused, the Court below invoked provisions of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and issued notice to this petitioner to face trial.

¶15

6. Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that when during course of an enquiry or trial of an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which he needs to be tried together with other accused persons, he should be tried with those persons.

¶16

7. In the instant case, in evidence adduced during trial, all the witnesses have stated that it is this petitioner, who was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, which caused the accident. Since this petitioner is not an accused and his complicity came up on the basis of evidence of witnesses, Court below has jurisdiction to direct him to appear and face trial. The Court below has taken note of the evidence of prosecution witnesses and their statement in the impugned order. I find that the Court below has also taken note of the fact and recorded gist of the evidence of the witnesses, who has taken name of this petitioner and also mentioned in what manner the name of the petitioner was taken by the witnesses. Thus, the impugned order is a reasoned order, which reflects that the Court has considered that witnesses have stated that it is this petitioner, who is involved in the offence, thus summoned him to face trial.

¶17

8. Accordingly, there being no illegality in the impugned order, I am not inclined to entertain this criminal miscellaneous petition. This criminal miscellaneous petition is, thus, dismissed.

¶18

( Ananda Sen, J.)

¶19

Kumar/Cp-03

Bikas Haldar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bikas Haldar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sannu Yadav Alias Sannu Kumar Yadav Alias Papu Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Binod Kumar Burnwal Vs Divyanka Burnwal

Dimple Lamay Vs the State of Jharkhand

Birendra Kumar Singh And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Suresh Kumar Roy Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abhimanyu Bhardwaj Vs the State of Jharkhand