Dismissed

Niranjan Lal Todi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Nov 2023Cr.M.P./945/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition for quashing an order rejecting a Section 311 Cr.P.C. application to examine a complainant post-charge. The court held that despite the general legal principle allowing post-charge examination, the excessive delay and deliberate slowing of justice in this eviction case made it unfit for interference.

What the court decided

AI extract

Niranjan Lal Todi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 945 of 2018

¶2

------

¶3

Niranjan Lal Todi .... .... …. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Binod Prasad Chourasiya

¶7

Rajan Chourasiya

¶8

Bhim Chourasiya .... .... .... Opp. Parties

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P. For the O.P. Nos.2-4 : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Roy, Advocate

¶11

------

¶12

Order No.06 / Dated : 09.11.2023

¶13

The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.02.2018 passed in C No. 2461 of 2008 under Sections 420, 461, 379, 34 of Indian Penal Code whereby and whereunder, the petition of the complainant filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

¶14

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed on the ground that the complainant had not examined himself at the stage of evidence before charge and had taken long adjournment for concluding his evidence before charge. The petition has been rejected on the sole ground that since the complainant had not been examined before charge, therefore, he cannot be examined post charge.

¶15

In this regard, it is submitted that a person who has not been examined before charge can be examined after the charge in a complaint case. Reliance is placed on Sayeeda Farhana Shamim Versus State of Bihar & Another , (2008) 8 SCC 218 , wherein it has been held that

¶16

19. In view of the consensus of the opinion which has emerged from various decisions of the High Court, it appears that the power of the Magistrate should not be fettered either under Section 244 or under sub-section (6) of Section 246 Cr.P.C and full latitude should be given to the Magistrate to exercise the discretion to entertain a supplementary list. But as we have already added a word of caution that while accepting the supplementary list, the Magistrate shall exercise his discretion judiciously for the advancement of the cause of justice and not to give a handle to the complainant to harass the accused.

¶17

Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has submitted that this is not the sole ground on which the petition of recall has been rejected. The rejection has been made on considering different factors and delays occasion in different

¶18

stages.

¶19

It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of opposite party no.2 that the facts of present case will be relevant for considering the exercise of discretion by the learned Court. The F.I.R. was lodged by the tenant against land lord and his family members in 2006. After investigation, closure report was submitted and protest-cum-complaint case was filed on 12.11.2008. The enquiry was concluded and process under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. was issued and thereafter, the case was posted for evidence before charge from 4^th November, 2009 in which only four witnesses were examined and the complainant was not examined in this period, neither he applied for examination.

¶20

The evidence before charge was closed in 2014 and finally, charge was framed in 2016 and during this period, the application was made for examination of the complainant. After framing of charge on 02.05.2016, the evidence was closed on 20.01.2017 and not a single witness was examined during this period. After the closure on 13^th February, 2017, a petition under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was filed.

¶21

The statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has already been recorded on 25^th June, 2018 and D.W.1 has been examined and crossexamined.

¶22

There is no quarrel with the legal position submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Magistrate is not fettered by the list of witnesses furnished by him under Section 246(6) of the Cr.P.C., but this is not the sole ground on which the petition on behalf of the petitioner’s husband rejected. Court time is valuable and no party has a right of unlimited adjournments particularly when the speedy justice is regarded as a fundamental right.

¶23

This is a case which has been filed by the tenant against the landlord for the incidence which allegedly took place in 2006. Earlier the closure report was filed and then the case was permitted to proceed on a tardy pace. There is force in the submission advanced on behalf of the O.P. No.2 that the pot was deliberately kept boiling to prolong the illegal occupation of the tenant in the premises.

¶24

It has been held in Varsha Garg Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Others , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 986. Summing up the position as it obtained from various decisions of this Court, namely Rameshwar Dayal v. State of U.P. , State of W.B. v. Tulsidas Mundhra , Jamatraj Kewalji Govani v. State of

¶25

Maharashtra , Masalti v. State of U.P. , Rajeswar Prosad Misra v. State of W.B. and R.B. Mithani v. State of Maharashtra , the Court held:

¶26

“27. The principle of law that emerges from the views expressed by this Court in the above decisions is that the criminal court has ample power to summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine any such person even if the evidence on both sides is closed and the jurisdiction of the court must obviously be dictated by exigency of the situation, and fair play and good sense appear to be the only safe guides and that only the requirements of justice command the examination of any person which would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.”

¶27

Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the present case, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case for interfering with the impugned order.

¶28

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed.

¶29

AKT/Anit

Niranjan Lal Todi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Niranjan Lal Todi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Justice Anil Kumar Sinha Vs Eastern Railways through Its Chief Administrative Officer

Abinash Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Matilda Ekka Vs the State of Jharkhand

Krishna Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suman Anand Vs the State of Jharkhand