Dismissed

Shyam Sundar Panjiyara v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC10 May 2023W.P.(Cr.)/245/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the High Court's dismissal of a complaint regarding alleged forgery in a title dispute, wherein cognizance was taken only against one accused. The court held that the trial court's decision to issue process against only one accused was not illegal as the dispute had civil elements, allowing future proceedings against others if grounds emerged during the trial.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with finding no illegality in the order of taking cognizance against only respondent No. 6.

Shyam Sundar Panjiyara Vs The State Of Jharkhand And… — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(Cr.) No. 245 of 2017

¶3

Shyam Sundar Panjiyara ..... … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand.

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner, Gooda.

¶7

The Circle Officer, Pathargama, Godda.

¶8

The Circle Inspector, Jai Ram Prakash, Block-Pathargama, Godda.

¶9

Halka Karamchari, Santosh Pandit

¶10

Indradeo Panjiyara ..... … Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶13

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ravi Kerketta, S.C.-VI. : Ms Deepika Jojowar, A.C. to S.C.-VI. For the Resp. No. 5 & 6 : Mr. J.P. Jha, Sr. Advocate.

¶14

¶15

05/ 10.05.2023 Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Ravi Kerketta, learned S.C.-VI, for the State and Mr. J.P. Jha, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

¶16

This petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to take proper cognizance against respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 under Sections 418, 419, 420, 465, 464, 468, 469 and 471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with P.C.R. Case No. 743 of 2015, pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Godda.

¶17

Mr. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case was filed alleging therein that the respondent No. 6 Indradeo Panjiyara in collusion with respondent Nos. 4 and 5 has prepared forged genealogical table with a view to snatch the property in question. He further submits that the complainant has examined six witnesses in the complaint during course of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and allegations have been proved by the enquiry witnesses, however, the learned court has taken the cognizance against only Indradeo Panjiyara. He further submits that against the rest of the accused persons, cognizance has not been taken, which is against the mandate of law. According to him the law is well settled that if in the enquiry, prima facie case is made out all the accused persons are required to be called upon to face the trial.

¶18

On the other hand Mr. Jha, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 submits that allegations are purely civil in nature and dispute has arisen with respect of Title Suit No. 37 of 1965, wherein it has been decided that Asharfi Panjiyara is full brother of

¶19

-2-

¶20

Gurudayal Panjiyara and the complainant and his father are not related to them. He further submits that what are the materials were found was brought before the learned court and after looking into the materials the learned court has taken the cognizance against one the accused person, as prima facie case has been made only against him.

¶21

In view of such submissions of the parties, the court has gone through the contents of the complaint petition as well as the cognizance order, from which, it transpires that the allegations are made that on the forged genealogical table, the land in question has been tried to be grabbed by respondent Nos. 5 an 6. The learned court after looking into the enquiry witnesses and materials available on record has taken the cognizance only against respondent No. 6 Indradeo Panjiyara.

¶22

It is well settled that the court is required to do is to satisfy itself as to whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding for issuance of process against the accused, it has to be seen only whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The facts stated will have to be accepted as they appear on the very face of it for issuance of process against the accused, which has to be seen only whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and the Court is not required to weigh the evidentiary value of the materials on record. The Court must apply its mind to the allegations in the complaint and the Court is not required to examine the merits and demerits of the case and not to determine the adequacy of the evidence for holding the accused guilty at the time of taking cognizance.

¶23

7. In the case in hand, the learned court looking into the enquiry witnesses has taken the cognizance against one of the accused. From the complaint itself it appears that certain civil dispute is also there between the parties and looking to that the learned court has not taken cognizance against the other accused persons. Further if in course of trial, the complainant is able to make out a case further against any person, the court is competent to call upon the other persons to face the trial.

¶24

8. In view of the above, the court finds that there is no illegality in the order of taking cognizance. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

¶25

9. Interim order, granted earlier, stands vacated.

¶26

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶27

Amitesh/-

Shyam Sundar Panjiyara v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Sundar Panjiyara v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

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

Anil Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Prakash Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Rajkumar Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Manorma Devi and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Mahendra Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sourendra Nath Roy Alias Hari Nath Roy Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.