Partly allowed

K D Singh Alias Krishnadeo Singh Alias Krishnadeo Prasad Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC22 Jan 2020Cr.M.P./547/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand quashed the dismissal of a discharge petition and remanded the matter regarding three petitioners (father and brothers of appointed accused) for whom no prima facie materials were mentioned in lower courts to frame charges. The order affirming charges against the other two petitioners was upheld.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was quashed against petitioners 1, 2, and 3, and the matter remanded to the court below. The order was affirmed against petitioners 4 and 5.

K D Singh Alias Krishnadeo Singh Alias… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M.P. No. 547 of 2019

¶3

K.D.Singh @ Krishnadeo Singh @ Krishnadeo Prasad Singh

¶4

B.K.Singh @ Brajesh Kumar Singh

¶5

Shailendra Kumar Sinha

¶6

Vinay Kumar

¶7

Sujit Kumar Sinha …..…....... Petitioner(s)

¶8

Versus State of Jharkhand ………… Opp. Party(s)

¶9

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jay Shankar Tiwary, Advocate For the State : A.P.P.

¶11

5/22.01.2020 Heard the parties.

¶12

The petitioners, in this application, have challenged the order dated 18.07.2018, by which their discharge petition was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in Sadar P.S. Case No. 649/09, G.R. No. 2821 of 2009.

¶13

They also challenged the revisional order dated 18.01.2019, by which the Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh has dismissed the revision application of the petitioners being Cr. Revision No. 114 of 2018.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without there being any material against the petitioners, their discharge petition has been dismissed. He submits that the allegation is against Vinay Kumar, Sujit Kumar Sinha (petitioner nos. 4 & 5 herein), Rajiv Ranjan & Dharmendra Kumar, who, on the basis of the forged advertisement and forged documents, entered into the government service. He submits that what are the materials to frame charge against the father and brother respectively of the accused to frame charge, have not been mentioned in the impugned order. He submits that the Court should have at least reflected in his order the materials available to frame charge against the relatives of the persons, who have been appointed. He further submits that simply because they are the relatives of the persons, who were appointed by virtue of forged advertisement, they have been made accused without there being any material.

¶15

After hearing the counsel for the parties and on going through the impugned order, I find that on the basis of the forged advertisement and forged documents Vinay Kumar, Sujit Kumar Sinha (petitioner nos. 4 & 5 herein), Rajiv Ranjan & Dharmendra Kumar have been appointed in the Health Department of the Government of Jharkhand. The advertisement was a fake advertisement and the documents they produced were also

¶16

-2-

¶17

fake. They were made accused alongwith petitioner no. 1, who happens to be the father of Rajiv Ranjan, petitioner no. 2, who happens to be the father of Vinay Kumar and petitioner no. 3, who happens to be the brother of Sujit Kumar Sinha. From the entire order, passed by both the courts below while dismissing the discharge application and the revision application, I find that nothing has been whispered as to what are the materials collected against these three persons namely, K.D.Singh @ Krishnadeo Singh @ Krishnadeo Prasad Singh, B.K.Singh @ Brajesh Kumar Singh and Shailendra Kumar Sinha (petitioner nos. 1 to 3 herein), to frame charge against them. Definitely there are materials against the persons, who have been appointed but the Court has not mentioned as to what are the materials to proceed and frame charge against three persons, named above. It is true that the Court has not to weigh the evidence or to pass a detail order while considering the discharge application, but should at least mention what are the prima-facie materials against the accused, whom the court is seeking to frame charge.

¶18

Thus, the impugned order so far as petitioner nos. 1 to 3 are concerned, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed against them. The matter is remitted to the court below to pass a fresh order in respect of these three petitioners, named above, at the earliest.

¶19

So far as petitioner nos. 4 & 5 namely, Vinay Kukmar and Sujit Kumar Sinha, are concerned, I find no illegality in the impugned order framing charge against them. Accordingly, the order is hereby affirmed against them.

¶20

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of.

¶21

( Ananda Sen, J )

¶22

Mukund/-cp.3

K D Singh Alias Krishnadeo Singh Alias Krishnadeo Prasad Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K D Singh Alias Krishnadeo Singh Alias Krishnadeo Prasad Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar Thapa Chhetry Alias Santosh Chhetry Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Tamanna Bibi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Shrivastwa Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raju Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anjan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Naresh Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.