Yogendra Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Yogendra Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None on merits. Revision application dismissed as withdrawn at the request of the petitioners; pending I.A., if any, closed; liberty reserved to the petitioners to take all available points at the stage of trial with a no-prejudice protection for both sides; copy of the order to be communicated to the court concerned through e-mail/FAX.

Issue for consideration

Challenge to the legality, correctness and propriety of the order dated 07.08.2018 of the learned Additional District Judge-IV, Ramgarh, rejecting the petitioners' discharge petition under Section 227 Cr.PC. — the issue was not adjudicated on merits, as the revision application was permitted to be withdrawn.

Ratio / Principle

Since the trial has commenced and witnesses have been examined, the petitioners' prayer for withdrawal was accepted without objection from the State, and the revision application is dismissed as withdrawn.

Key takeaways

As a term of the disposal, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to take all points available at the stage of trial, and the withdrawal shall not prejudice the case of either party.ratio¶¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Cri. Revision No. 13 of 2019 (High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi; Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.; decided 07.03.2024): Ten petitioners challenged the order dated 07.08.2018 of the learned Additional District Judge-IV, Ramgarh, rejecting their discharge petition under Section 227 Cr.PC. in S.T. No. 07 of 2017 (Gola P.S. Case No. 36 of 2016, G.R. No. 592 of 2016), registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 341, 342, 323, 325 and 307 IPC. Since trial had commenced and a number of witnesses had been examined, counsel for the petitioners sought permission to withdraw, to which the State raised no objection. Held: revision application dismissed as withdrawn; pending I.A., if any, closed; liberty reserved to the petitioners to take all points available at the stage of trial, withdrawal causing no prejudice to either party; copy to be communicated to the trial court through e-mail/FAX. The legality of the discharge-rejection order was not adjudicated.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cri. Revision No. 13 of 2019

Yogendra Mahto @ Yogondra Mahto, aged about 50 years, son of Late Sahdeo Mahto

Ajit Mahto, aged about 45 years, Son of Huteshwar Mahto

Ritu Mahto, aged about 45 years, son of Late Sahdeo Mahto

Mukar Mahto, aged about 30 years, son of Khetu Mahto

Huteshwar Mahto, aged about 40 years, Son of Late Baldeo Mahto

Shanichar Mahto, aged about 40 years, Son of Late Sahdeo Mahto

Khelaram Mahto, aged about 25 years, son of Bhiru mahto

Chohan Mahto, aged about 45 years, son of Late Hiran Mahto

Mohan Mahto, aged about 40 years, son of Late Hiran Mahto

10.Bharat Mahto, aged about 25 years, son of Sukar Mahto

All are resident of village Kumhardaga, P.O. + P.S. Gola, District Ramgarh

… … Petitioners

Versus

The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --For the Petitioners : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Vishwanath Ray, Advocate ---

07/15^th March 2024

1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.

2. This revision application has been filed challenging the legality, correctness and propriety of the order dated 07.08.2018, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-IV, Ramgarh, in connection with Gola P.S. Case No. 36 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 592 of 2016, S.T. No. 07 of 2017, registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 447, 341, 342, 323, 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby the discharge petition which was filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 227 of the Cr.PC. was rejected on 07.08.2018, now said to be pending in the court of learned Additional Distruct Judge-IV, Ramgarh.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the trial has commenced and number of witnesses have been examined and therefore he seeks permission to withdraw this petition. He submits that withdrawal of this petition may not prejudice the case of the petitioners.

2

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State has no objection to the prayer made for withdrawal.

5. Accordingly, this revision application is dismissed as withdrawn.

6. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.

7. Liberty is reserved with the petitioners to take all points as may be available at the stage of trial and withdrawal of this petition will not prejudice the case of either parties in any manner whatsoever.

8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through

‘e-mail/FAX’.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

Mukul