Swapan Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.459 of 2019

------

Swapan Kumar Mahato aged about 42 years son of Nibaran Mahato resident of Village-Rampur, P.O. & P.S.-Gobindpur, DistrictDhanbad. … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party With

¶6

Cr.M.P. No.490 of 2019

¶7

Swapan Kumar Mahato @ Sapan Mahato aged about 42 years son of Nibaran Mahato resident of Village-Rampur, P.O. & P.S.-Gobindpur, District-Dhanbad. …

¶8

Petitioner

¶9

Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, Addl.P.P.

¶10

------

¶11

P R E S E N T

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶13

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶14

Since, Cr.M.P. No.459/2019 and 490/2019 have been filed with the same prayer, hence, both these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶15

These Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the G.R. Case No.1062/2013 corresponding to Jamtara P.S. Case No.375/2013 arising out of P.C.R. Case No.622 of 2013 as well as the order taking cognizance dated 27.05.2016 for the offence punishable under Section 120B/420/34 of Indian Penal Code as also

¶16

1 Cr. M.P. No.459 of 2019 with Cr.M.P. No.490 of 2019

¶17

under Section 4,5 & 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara.

¶18

It is pertinent to mention here that consequent upon filing the P.C.R. Case No.622/2013, the same was referred to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. basing upon the same Jamtara P.S. Case No.375/2013 has been registered and police took up investigation of the case, after completion of the investigation police submitted charge sheet. The copy of the charge sheet has not been filed in this case without any plausible explanation and the same has been suppressed by the petitioner. Basing upon the charge sheet learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara has taken cognizance of the said offences.

¶19

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a compromise has been entered into with one Pawan Chandar Mahato and the matter has been settled between them. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that complaint is with respect to dealing of money and the dispute is of civil nature and no criminal case is made out, hence, the prayer as prayed for in both these criminal miscellaneous petitions, be allowed.

¶20

Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that after investigation of the case, police found sufficient material to establish that the petitioner has committed the offences for which cognizance has been taken and the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the charge sheet basing upon which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara has taken cognizance of the offences. It is next submitted that the alleged compromise is

¶21

2 Cr. M.P. No.459 of 2019 with Cr.M.P. No.490 of 2019

¶22

not with the informant/victim, hence, it is submitted that both these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions, being without any merit, be dismissed.

¶23

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that after investigation of the case, police found the allegations against the petitioner to be true and submitted charge sheet against him, intimating the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara that there is sufficient material in the record to suggest that the petitioner has committed the offences in respect of which charge sheet was submitted and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara has taken cognizance. As already indicated above the petitioner has not filed the certified copy of the charge sheet submitted against the petitioner wherein it has categorically been mentioned that the petitioners has committed the offences in respect of which cognizance has been taken and the description of the incriminating materials implicated in this petitioner in this case has also been mentioned therein. The alleged compromise is not with the informant/victim. The contention of the petitioner that allegations against him are false is a defence which the petitioner can take at the time of trial, but certainly the same is not a sufficient ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594 that no mini trial can be conducted by the high court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the relevant portion of which reads as under :-

¶24

“Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has

¶25

3 Cr. M.P. No.459 of 2019 with Cr.M.P. No.490 of 2019

¶26

virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered. (Emphasis supplied)

¶27

It is also a settled principle of law that in exercise of power under Section 482 of CrPC, the genuine prosecution cannot be stifled as has been held in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781 .

¶28

Now, coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed facts remains that the charge sheet has been submitted by the police after finding the allegations against the petitioner to be true and basing upon the same, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara has taken cognizance of the offences.

¶29

Under such circumstances, keeping in view the serious nature of allegations against the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the G.R. No.1062/2013 corresponding to Jamtara P.S. Case No.375/2013 arising out of P.C.R. Case No.622 of 2013 as well as the order taking cognizance dated 27.05.2016 for the offence punishable under Section 120B/420/34 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 4,5 & 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme(Banning)Act passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara against the petitioner, be quashed and set aside.

¶30

Accordingly, both these criminal miscellaneous petitions being without any merit, are dismissed.

¶31

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶32

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 01^st of October, 2024 AFR/ Abhiraj

¶33

4 Cr. M.P. No.459 of 2019 with Cr.M.P. No.490 of 2019

Swapan Mahato v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swapan Mahato v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Ram Choubey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abdul Jabbar Vs Noor Mahammad

Pankaj Kumar Alias Sonu Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Swapan Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajendra Singh Vs Kanhaiya Sharma And Ors.

Abhishek Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand