Sukar Koeri Alias Budhan Koeri Vs the State of Jharkhand

[2025:JHHC:15301]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.406 of 2018

------

Sukar Koeri @ Budhan Koeri @ Budhan Mahto, S/o Nanhu Koeri, aged about 48 years, resident of Village- Barki Dhamrai, Koderma, P.O. Telaiya Dam, PS- Jainagar, District- Koderma, PIN 825413 (Jharkhand)

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Mostt. Bhikhani Devi, wife of late Sukar Koeri, resident of VillageBarki Dhamrai, Koderma, P.O. Telaiya Dam, PS- Jainagar, District- Koderma, PIN 825413 (Jharkhand)

¶9

Damodar Valley Corporation through Director, Soil Conservation Department, Hazaribagh

¶10

… Opposite Parties

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anup Kumar Topno, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Abhinesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ramesh Kr. Singh, Advocate For the O.P. No.3 : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Aayush Ojha, Advocate

¶12

------

¶13

P R E S E N T

¶14

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶15

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶16

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Jainagar (Telaiya Dam OP) P.S. Case No.167 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 789 of 2017 including the order dated 01.05.2017 passed by the SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in Complaint Case No. C-378 of 2017

¶17

¶18

Cr. M.P. No.406 of 2018

¶19

[2025:JHHC:15301]

¶20

whereby and where under the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma has referred the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for instituting FIR.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anil Kumar & Others vs. M.K. Aiyappa & Another reported in (2013) 10 SCC 705 , para-11 which reads as under:-

¶22

“11. The scope of Section 156(3) CrPC came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. This Court in Maksud Saiyed case [(2008) 5 SCC 668 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 692] examined the requirement of the application of mind by the Magistrate before exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) and held that where jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 CrPC, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind, in such a case, the Special Judge/Magistrate cannot refer the matter under Section 156(3) against a public servant without a valid sanction order. The application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order. The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant, as such, as reflected in the order, will not be sufficient. After going through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, should be reflected in the order, though a detailed expression of his views is neither required nor warranted. We have already extracted the order passed by the learned Special Judge which, in our view, has stated no reasons for ordering investigation.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶23

and submits that the settled principle of law is that in the order by which

¶24

a Magistrate exercises the jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the mere statement that the Magistrate has gone through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, as such will not be sufficient but the Magistrate must mention in the order concerned, as to what weighed with the Magistrate, to order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, though a detailed expression of his view is neither required nor warranted. It is next submitted that the said judgment of the

¶25

¶26

Cr. M.P. No.406 of 2018

¶27

[2025:JHHC:15301]

¶28

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anil Kumar & Others vs. M.K. Aiyappa & Another (supra) has also been relied upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ramdev Food Products Private Limited vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2015) 6 SCC 439 and the case of Om Prakash Ambadkar vs. State of Maharashtra & Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 238. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.

¶29

Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the informant/opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.3 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner but fairly submit that the learned Magistrate has failed to specifically mention as to what weighed with the Magistrate, to order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed.

¶30

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 in view of the settled principle of law discussed above, when the Magistrate exercises the jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; it is required for the Magistrate, to specifically mention, as to what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But coming to the facts of the case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma has failed to do the same. Hence, the order dated 01.05.2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in Complaint Case No. C-378 of 2017 is not sustainable in law having been passed

¶31

¶32

Cr. M.P. No.406 of 2018

¶33

[2025:JHHC:15301]

¶34

without application of judicial mind. Therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶35

Accordingly, the order dated 01.05.2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in connection with Complaint Case No. C-378 of 2017 is quashed and set aside.

¶36

The case is remanded back to the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma to pass a fresh order in connection with Complaint Case No. C-378 of 2017.

¶37