Dismissed

Niraj Jain v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Apr 2023W.P.(Cr.)/3/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Sessions Judge's order dismissing a revision against a cognizance order. The petitioner alleged the lower court failed to include Sections 461 and 379 IPC, taking cognizance only under Section 448 IPC. The Court held the order was correct as charge can be altered under Section 216 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

W.P.(Cr.) No. 03 of 2022 has been dismissed with no relief extended to the petitioner.

Niraj Jain Vs the State of Jharkhand — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶3

----

¶4

W.P.(Cr.) No. 03 of 2022

¶5

----

¶6

Niraj Jain aged about 45 years son of Bhagchand Jain resident of Boddom Bazar P.O. and P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribag .... Petitioner

¶7

-- Versus --

¶8

The State of Jharkhand and Others .... Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶11

		---
For the Petitioner	:-	Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, Advocate
For the State	:-	Mr. Neil Abhijit Toppo, AC to GA-V
		----

¶12

7 /10.04.2023 This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 8.10.2021 passed in Criminal Revision No.30 of 2021 whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribag has dismissed the revision application preferred by the petitioner.

¶13

On the written report of the petitioner the case has been lodged alleging therein that his shop is located at Gola Road, Boddom Bazar, Hazaribag in which he does business of cigrate. For the last few days the uncle of the informatnt namely Santosh Kumar Jain and his two sons namely Rajat Jain and Raunak Jaiin used to create problems in the smooth working of business, for which the informant petitioner has written application before the Sub Divisional Officer, Hazaribag on 22.3.2021, 28.3.2021 the accused persons were doing construction work for which the informant went and found the back wall of his 2^nd shop broken, the goods present in the shop of the informant was stolen by the opposite parties. In the shop of the informant five cartoons of cigrate, Rs.60,000/- kept in the cash counter three tables, six chairs, three almirah, documents relating to cases, documents relating to the shop and

¶14

¶15

other articles were stolen by the opposite parties. The total price of stolen articles was Rs.3.5 lakhs. In the FIR the informant has mentioned that he has full believe that the articles kept in the shop of the informant was stolen by the accused persons who are the O.P.s in the present case.

¶16

Mr. Shikarwar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said case was investigated by the police and the charge sheet has been submitted on 23.05.2021 under section 448 IPC . He submits that however the charge sheet has not been submitted under section 461 and 379 of the IPC. He submits that the learned court has taken congnizance under section 448 of the IPC and the said order was challenged before the learned revisional court saying that the order taking cognizance is bad in law as sections 461 and 379 of the IPC were not added in the order taking cognizance. He submits that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the correct position of law and wrongly has held that the order dated 5.7.2021 is interlocutory in nature and as such the present revision petition is not maintainable. On this ground he submits that the Court may quash the order of the learned revisional court and direction may kindly be issued to add sections 461 and 379 of the IPC.

¶17

The learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the learned court has passed the reasoned order and the learned court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhu Limaya v. State of Maharsahtra, reported in 1978 AIR 47.

¶18

The Court has perused the impugned order of the learned court and finds that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that the congnizance order can be challenged in revision and that is not resintegra however in the present case the main grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Court has not taken cognizance under sections 461

¶19

¶20

and 379 of the IPC and has taken congnizance under section 448 of the IPC. The learned court further held that in view of section 216 Cr.PC it is crystal clear that at any stage the charge can be altered and in that view of the matter the learned court has dismissed the petition. The Court finds that the finding of the learned court is correct as under section 216 Cr.P.C the charge can be altered at any stage and it is for the petitioner to make out a case of alteration of charge under section 216 Cr.P.C.

¶21

No relief can be extended to the petition as there is no

¶22

illegality in the impugned order.

¶23

Accordingly W.P.(Cr.) No. 03 of 2022 is dismissed.

¶24

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶25

SI/

Niraj Jain v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niraj Jain 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mamta Sinha And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Gautam Jaiswal Alias Alok Raj Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Anil Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Munshi Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nandkishor Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashwani Manjhi Vs the State of Jharkhand