Dismissed¶29

Nirmal Chand Mall Alias Nirmal v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC12 Jan 2024Cr.Rev./261/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand HC Cr. Rev. 261/2022 Gautam Kumar Choudhary 12.01.2024 dismissal of revision seeking quashing of 16.12.2021 order in Complaint Case 625/2017 rejecting discharge petition under Section 245 Cr.P.C.; prima facie case upheld under Sections 323 341 448 506 379 IPC; alleged land-grab assault 18.05.2015 and 05.03.2017 over 35 decimals; counsel points on no allegations against petitioner nos. 2-5 and absence of medical evidence; court: discharge-stage judicial scrutiny limited, no infirmity found; dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Considering the materials on record, the Court found no infirmity in the impugned order rejecting the discharge petition. ¶28

Nirmal Chand Mall Alias Nirmal Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Rev. No. 261 of 2022

¶3

¶4

Nirmal Chand Mall @ Nirmal Mal

¶5

Bate Krishna Mall @ Bata Krishna Mal

¶6

Mohan Chandra Mall @ Mohal Mal

¶7

Niyati Mal @ Niyati Mall

¶8

Bittu Mal @ Arun Kumar Mal @ Arun Kumar Mall

¶9

Banty Mal @ Binay Kumar Mal @ Baunty Mal @ Binay Kumar Mall

¶10

… …. Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

The State of Jharkhand

¶13

Chhaya Bhandari … …. Opp. Parties

¶14

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶15

¶16

For the Petitioners : M/s Indrajit Sinha & Shishir Suman, Advocates For the State : Mr. B.N. Ojha, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mrs. J.K. Mazumdar, Advocate

¶17

Oral Order

¶18

12 / Dated : 12.01.2024

¶19

The instant revision petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.12.2021 passed in Complaint Case No. 625 of 2017 whereby and whereunder, the discharge petition filed under Section 245 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners has been rejected by the court below and prima facie case has been held to be made out under Sections 323, 341, 448, 506 and 379 of Indian Penal Code.

¶20

Case of the complainant in brief is that her husband was the manager and caretaker of the land, owner was residing in Gujarat. Power of attorney was also executed in the favour of her husband. The accused persons were bent upon grabbing the 35 decimals of land detailed in the complaint petition, for which they entered into the house and assaulted the complainant and her husband on 18.05.2015. Her husband had made a written complaint to the police regarding this but no action was taken and thereafter a legal notice was sent to the mother of the accused persons, following which they stopped the illegal work over the said land.

¶21

It is alleged that on 5.3.2017 at 9 AM the accused persons jointly entered into house and illegally started the construction work over the said land and being opposed the assaulted the complainant.

¶22

On enquiry, prima facie case was found to be made out and process was issued against the accused persons.

¶23

Three witnesses were examined before charge who fully supported the case, on

¶24

the basis of which the discharge petition was rejected.

¶25

The order has been assailed on the ground that there is no allegation against petitioner nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the entire complaint petition and whatever allegation is there, it is against petitioner nos. 1 and 6. The allegations made against the other petitioners are by way of afterthought only to harass the entire family. Further, the allegation of assault is not supported by any medical evidence and, therefore, Section 323 IPC is not made out. Reliance is placed on Abhishek Saxena Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. passed in Cr. Appeal No. 3628 of 2023 on 28.11.2023. The complainant has not stated anything against petitioner nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 in her statement recorded on solemn affirmation during enquiry as well as in the evidence before charge.

¶26

Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the discharge petition and submitted that the argument, as advanced regarding accused nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 that the complaint petition does not name them to be involved in the incidence, is misleading and incorrect.

¶27

Scope of judicial scrutiny at the stage of discharge is a limited one. A order of discharge can be passed only when the Learned Magistrate finds,for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction.

¶28

Considering the materials on record I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.

¶29

Revision petition stands dismissed.

¶30

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶31

AKT/Satayendra

¶32

Uploaded

Nirmal Chand Mall Alias Nirmal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmal Chand Mall Alias Nirmal 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

Ms Shakambari Builders P Limited Represented through Its Director Shri Pawan Bajaj Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Registration Revene and Land Reforms

Pawan Kumar Kejriwal Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Registration Revenue and Land Reforms

Vikash Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Registration Revene and Land Reforms

Ashok Kumar Singh Alias Ashok Singh Alias a K Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Priya Alias Priya Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pooja Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand