Dismissed¶14

Rohit Kumar Singh Alias Rohit Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Jan 2025Cr.M.P./3360/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Cr.M.P. No. 3360 of 2024 (decided 06.01.2025): quashing petition dismissed; challenge to cognizance order dated 29.6.2024 in Nirsa PS Case No. 289 of 2023; offences under sections 395, 397, 170 and 171 IPC and section 28 Arms Act; toy pistol recovered per seizure list; rangdari demand of Rs. 50,000/-; confessional statement of petitioner and co-accused; charge-sheet and cognizance by learned Magistrate upheld; no interference with criminal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The Court found no merit in the criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings and the cognizance order dated 29.6.2024, and accordingly dismissed the petition. ¶14

Rohit Kumar Singh Alias Rohit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceedings in Nirsa PS Case No. 289 of 2023, including the cognizance order dated 29.6.2024 passed under sections 395, 397, 170 and 171 IPC and section 28 of the Arms Act, should be quashed.

¶7

Court's answer

The Court found no merit in the criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings and the cognizance order dated 29.6.2024, and accordingly dismissed the petition.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Although the seizure list showed that the recovered pistol was a toy pistol, the Court recorded that several materials had been collected in the course of investigation showing the petitioner's involvement in the case, and that cognizance had been taken by the learned Magistrate for the offences under sections 395, 397, 170 and 171 IPC and section 28 of the Arms Act; on these facts the quashing prayer was refused.

¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.), Cr.M.P. No. 3360 of 2024, decided 06.01.2025: Petition for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings, including the cognizance order dated 29.6.2024, arising out of Nirsa PS Case No. 289 of 2023 registered for offences under sections 395, 397, 170 and 171 IPC and section 28 of the Arms Act. The petitioner, a named accused arrested on the spot, contended that the recovered pistol was a toy pistol and that, apart from his confessional statement and those of co-accused, there was no legal evidence against him. The State opposed, pointing to the petitioner being named in the FIR, his arrest on the spot, the charge-sheet and the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate. The Court noted from the seizure list that the recovered pistol was indeed a toy pistol, but observed that several materials had been collected during investigation showing the petitioner's involvement and that cognizance had been taken. Finding no merit in the petition, the Court dismissed it; the criminal proceedings and cognizance order were not interfered with. No precedent was cited or discussed in the order.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 3360 of 2024

¶3

------ Rohit Kumar Singh @ Rohit Kumar, S/o Chandrika Prasad Singh, R/o South Ghatka, PO & PS: South Asansol, District: Burdwan, West Bengal … …. … Petitioner

¶4

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶5

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratyush, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.K. Chatterjee, SPP

¶6

Order No.02/Dated: 06.01.2025

¶7

The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed on behalf of petitioner for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 29.6.2024, whereby and whereunder, the learned jurisdictional court has taken cognizance of the offence under sections 395, 397, 170 and 171 IPC and under section 28 of the Arms Act in connection with Nirsa PS Case No. 289 of 2023.

¶8

Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case of recovery of arms. He has further submitted that during course of investigation itself it was found that the recovered pistol was not genuine one rather a toy pistol. The charge-sheet has been submitted and also cognizance of the offence has been taken by the learned jurisdictional court. He has also submitted that except confessional statement of petitioner and other co-accused persons, there is no legal evidence against the petitioner for further proceeding in this case and, therefore, entire FIR and charge-sheet is fit to be quashed.

¶9

The learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that petitioner is named accused in the FIR and he was arrested by the police on the spot. He has further submitted that after finding sufficient material, charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance of the offence has been taken by the learned Magistrate. Hence, this petition is fit to be dismissed.

¶10

Perused the case record along with FIR, charge-sheet and cognizance order passed by the learned court below.

¶11

As per FIR lodged by the one Pramod Kumar Paswan in the night of

¶12

21.8.2023 the informant and driver of the Truck No. BR-44G-9821 along with his helper Jitendra Shah left for Arah from Kolkata and on 22.8.2023 at about 1:30 p.m. two vehicles overtook his truck and altogether seven persons came out of the said vehicles equipped with gun, knives and sticks and held them. On the gunpoint and knifepoint they snatched Rs. 4000/- from him along with document of the truck and driving license of the driver. Those persons declared that they were from IB and they demanded Rs. 50,000/- as rangdari but the owner of the truck transferred Rs. 5,000/- in the mobile number of one Tushar Prit Burnwal. It is further alleged that on seeing a patrolling car of Nirsa Police Station, the accused persons tried to flee but were apprehended and, hence, Nirsa PS case no. 289 of 2023 was registered.

¶13

It appears that the petitioner is named accused in the FIR registered for the offence under sections 395 and 397 IPC and under section 28 of the Arms Act. Perusal of seizure list transpires that the recovered pistol was a toy pistol. It further appears that in course of investigation several materials have been collected against the petitioner showing his involvement in the case and cognizance has also been taken by the learned Magistrate for the offence under sections 395, 397 170 and 171 IPC and section 28 of the Arms Act.

¶14

Considering the aforesaid facts, I do not find any merit in the present miscellaneous petition and, therefore, it is dismissed.

¶15

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶16

KNR/

Rohit Kumar Singh Alias Rohit Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Kumar Singh Alias Rohit Kumar 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

Jogen Purty Vs State of Jharkhand

Faiyaz Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abhishek Shaurya Alias Vicky Alias Kumar Abhishek Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hare Krishna Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajiv Narayan Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand and Ors.

Yogendra Ram And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.