Naresh Mahato Alias Naresh Kumar Mahato Vs The State Of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Rev. No. 834 of 2017

Naresh Mahto @ Naresh Kumar Mahato, son of Sri Sheolal Mahato, resident of village Bhichka More, Post Office and police station Katras, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand)

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Kumar Tripathy, s/o Sri Yogendra Kr. Tripathy at Sai Industries, Pakka Mahal, P.S. Ramkanali Katras O.P C/O Housing Colony, MIG-B/94. P.O. +P.S.+ Dist. Dhanbad. … … Opposite Parties

¶8

¶9

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶10

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, Advocate For the Opp. Party No. 2 : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate ---

¶11

07 /21.08.2024

¶12

1. The learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶13

2. This petition has been filed against order dated 28.03.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Dhanbad in Katras (Ramkanali) P.S. Case No. 35 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 646 of 2013(S) whereby vide the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class has been pleased to reject the discharge petition filed by the petitioner.

¶14

3. The case arise out of Katras (Ramkanali) P.S. Case No. 35 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 646 of 2013(S).

¶15

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the complaint petition which was sent for investigation by police has submitted that even if the allegation made against the petitioner on its face value is taken as correct then also no offence under Section 384 and 386 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. The learned counsel submits that unless a person transfers money by virtue of the threat, the allegation cannot be made out. He submits that this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the court and therefore the impugned order refusing to discharge is fit to be set aside.

¶16

1

¶17

5. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner had made a written representation to the Deputy Commissioner and after inquiry it was found that the case was falsely instituted and so Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad was directed to dismiss the Ramkanali P.S. Case No. 35 of 2013 against the present petitioner vide letter No. 1995.

¶18

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that in the complaint petition itself a direct allegation against the petitioner that he had threatened the complainant and had taken Rs. 50,000/- from his pocket forcefully and further threatened him that on every month Rs. 50,000/- is to be deposited failing which he will not be permitted to run his industry. He has also threatened that even the police is taking a portion of such collection through Rangdari .

¶19

7. This Court is of the considered view that there are direct allegation against the petitioner and therefore the argument of the petitioner that no offence under section 384 and 386 of the Indian Penal Code is devoid of any merit.

¶20

8. So far as the representation of the petitioner and the further recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner is concerned, the same has no bearing in the present case. The case has to be decided on the basis of materials collected during investigation and the aforesaid letter has no significance when the chargesheet has been filed.

¶21

9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and considering the impugned order dated 28.03.2017 refusing to discharge the petitioner does not call for any interference.

¶22

10. Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed.

¶23

11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘FAX/E-mail’.

¶24

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶25

Rakesh/-

¶26

2

Naresh Mahato Alias Naresh Kumar Mahato v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Mahato Alias Naresh Kumar Mahato v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Malti Kunwar Vs the Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Road Transport and Highway

Budhni Devi Vs Shri P M Prasad Chairman Cum Managing Director

Diwakar Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sitaram Soni And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Shankar Rajak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Miss Rimjhim Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand