TheHighCourt of Jharkhand dismissed a petition for quashing criminal proceedings involving forged educational certificates. The Court held that specific allegations of cheating justified cognizance and reasoned that veracity of defenses is for the trial court.
No relief; parallel proceedings against the petitioner were retained.
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
Cr.M.P. No.185 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 185 of 2023
Ashok Sharma, aged about 53 years, Son of Gobardhan Sharma, Resident of Jagarnathdih, P.O. & P.S. –Mirzaganj, District –Giridih
.... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
…. Opposite Party
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Kr. Sinha(2), Advocate For the State : Mrs. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl. P.P.
By the Court:-
2
Cr.M.P. No.185 of 2023
learned counsel for the petitioner that the case was instituted in the year 2006 and the charge sheet was submitted in the year 2019. It is then submitted that the petitioner has not received a single farthing in connection with the said fraudulent employment and the learned Magistrate by a cryptic order without assigning any reason has taken cognizance of the offence. Hence, it is submitted that the order taking cognizance dated 11.07.2019 including the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Tisri P.S. Case No. 79 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2425 of 2006, registered for the offences under Section 420/467/468/471/474 of the Indian Penal Code be quashed.
3
Cr.M.P. No.185 of 2023
direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of forging the document and on the basis of the same by way of cheating, the petitioner has got himself appointed as a teacher under the Government of Jharkhand and the F.I.R. has been lodged by the Regional Education Officer-cum-Block Education Extension Officer.
“8. Having considered the details of allegations made in the complaint petition, the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as materials on which the appellant placed reliance which were called for by the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate, in our considered opinion, committed no error in summoning the accused persons. At the stage of cognizance and summoning the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence, or, in other words, to find out whether prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the learned Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor is he required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials will lead to conviction or not.”
It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of cognizance and
summoning, a Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or the materials or arguments nor he is required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this state whether the materials will lead to conviction or not.
4
Cr.M.P. No.185 of 2023
5
Cr.M.P. No.185 of 2023
11.07.2019 including the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Tisri P.S. Case No. 79 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2425 of 2006.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 10th May, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. warrants quashing of cognizance order despite cryptic reasons provided by the Magistrate.
Whether the Court can adjudicate the veracity of the defence that allegations of forgery are false at the stage of quashing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sonu Gupta Vs. Deepak Gupta & Ors.Referred¶25
(2015) 3 SCC 424 · Who else cites this
State of M.P. vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors.Referred¶32
(2004) 1 SCC 691 · Who else cites this
Monica Kumar (Dr.) and another v. State of U.P. and othersReferred¶33
(2008) 8 SCC 781 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
ASHOK SHARMA
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
