Petitioner challenged an order refusing his discharge petition under Section 239 CrPC, contending that prosecution was based merely on suspicion. High Court accepted that no grave suspicion existed, quashing the order and criminal proceedings.
Impugned order and entire criminal proceeding quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.29711 of 2016
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -14 Year- 2011 Thana -RAJNAGAR District- MADHUBANI
===========================================================
Bipin Kumar Jha, son of Sri Tara Nand Jha, resident of village Jarsain, P.S. Rajnagar, district Madhubani .... Petitioner
Versus
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : M/S Soni Shrivastava, Abhishek Anand & Madhuri
Kumari, Advs. For the State : Mr. Choubey Jawahar, APP 158 For the informant : Mr. Ratnakar Jha, Adv.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 22-02-2017
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the informant and the State.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29711 of 2016 dt.22-02-2017
2
Court. More over, the impugned order would reveal that the Court below has noticed material in paragraphs 7, 8, 10, 15 and 28 of the case diary for coming to the conclusion that there is sufficient material for framing of charge against the petitioner. The finding is perverse one and suffers from error of record.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29711 of 2016 dt.22-02-2017
3
7 of the case diary contains the place of occurrence. Paragraph 8 of the case diary contained statement of wife of the informant wherein she stated that the petitioner had entered into the house. Subsequently, the petitioner was found missing from the house and soon thereafter the petitioner informed that he is going to vacate the house. Paragraph 15 of the case diary is simply statement of the police that the police had written to the Bank to get the information that who has withdrawn money from the Bank. However, the case diary does not reveal that any information was received from the Bank. Paragraph 28 of the case diary simply contains the direction of the superior authority to submit charge sheet against the petitioner.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29711 of 2016 dt.22-02-2017
4
“12 : Now the next question is whether a prima facie case has been made out against the appellant. In exercising powers under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial; by and large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully justified to discharge the accused, and in exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court but should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.”
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29711 of 2016 dt.22-02-2017
5
(Birendra Kumar, J)
SA/-
| AFR/NAFR | AFR |
|---|---|
| CAVDATE | |
| Uploading Date | 07.03.2017 |
| Transmission Date |
07.03.2017 |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a plea for quashing of criminal proceedings and order refusing discharge should be allowed when only suspicion exists without grave suspicion.
Whether the High Court can quash proceedings even after charges have been framed to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
Whether the available material discloses grave suspicion necessary to sustain criminal prosecution.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi Vrs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶29
(2008) 10 SCC, 394 · Who else cites this
Dilawar Balu Kurane Vrs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶33
(2002) 2 SCC, 135 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
BIPIN KUMAR JHA
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR
BIRENDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
