Dismissed

Rajendra Singh v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Aug 2021Cr.Rev./837/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the rejection of a discharge application. The court held that sufficient material existed in the records to frame charges against the petitioners and found no merit in the plea that the allegations were false.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed, order dated 30.04.2019 affirming the rejection of discharge application.

Rajendra Singh Vs State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 837 of 2019

¶3

Rajendra Singh

¶4

Shivshankar Singh

¶5

Junus Lakra …. ….Petitioners

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party

¶8

CORAM:-HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶9

……. For the Petitioners : - Mr. Prashant Rahul, Adv. For the State : -Mr. Vishwanath Roy, A. P. P.

¶10

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsels for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities were good.

¶11

04/18.08.2021

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

¶13

The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 30.04.2019 passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in connection with Garu P. S. Case No. 12 of 2017 corresponding to G. R. No. 244 of 2017 whereby application of the petitioners for discharge under Section 239 of the Cr. P. C. has been rejected.

¶14

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegation is false as the money has been deposited in the account of revisionist no. 3 and after proper verification, the money has been withdrawn only on the direction of the higher authority of the Department. Work has also been certified by the higher authority and as such, no case is made out against these petitioners and the Court below has committed error by not discharge the allegation against these petitioners under Section 239 of the Cr. P. C.

¶15

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the trial Court has rightly refused to discharge as there is sufficient material on records for framing the charge against these petitioners.

¶16

The law has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in (2019) 20 SCC 539. For better appreciation Section 23 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:

¶17

“23. In so far as taking cognizance based on the police report is concerned, the Magistrate has the advantage of the charge-sheet, statement of witnesses and other evidence collected by the police during the investigation. Investigating officer/SHO collects the necessary evidence during the investigation conducted in compliance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and in accordance with the rules of investigation. Evidence and materials so collected are sifted at the level of the investigating officer and thereafter, charge-sheet was filed. In appropriate cases, opinion of the Public Prosecutor is also obtained before filing the charge-sheet. The court thus has the advantage of the police report along with materials placed before it by the police. Under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, where the Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence upon a police report and the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate

¶18

directs issuance of process. In case of taking cognizance of an offence based upon the police report, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing the process. In case instituted on a police report, the Magistrate is only required to pass an order issuing summons to the accused. Such an order of issuing summons to the accused is based upon subject to satisfaction of the Magistrate considering the police report and other documents and satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In a case based upon the police report, at the stage of issuing the summons to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record any reason. In case, if the charge-sheet is barred by law or where there is lack of jurisdiction or when the charge-sheet is rejected or not taken on file, then the Magistrate is required to record his reasons for rejection of the charge-sheet and for not taking it on file.”

¶19

In the present case the allegation is that money has been withdrawn by making fake absentees. If it is approved by the Higher Authorities, it means Higher Authorities are involved, then it cannot be said that no offence is made out. Court below has passed a detailed order and from perusal of the order, it appears that there are sufficient materials suggesting the prima facie case against these petitioners.

¶20

In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any merit in the present revision petition. Accordingly, the same is, hereby, dismissed.

¶21

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶22

Kamlesh/

Rajendra Singh v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Singh v. State of Jharkhand

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

Gajo Ram Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sagar Chandra Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajendra Nonia Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sonu Ganjhu Alias Sonu Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manmohan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rahul Deo Pandey Vs The State Of Jharkhand