Dismissed

Rupam Jha v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC14 Feb 2019CR. MISC./1265/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged discharge order in criminal proceedings alleging illegal withdrawal of funds and civil dispute. Court relied on Amit Kapoor to hold that conviction evidence sufficiency is for trial court, not at charge-framing stage. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition challenging the order of cognizance and refusal to discharge under Section 239 CrPC is dismissed as sans merit.

Rupam Jha Vs The State Of Bihar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1265 of 2017

¶3

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2011 Thana- PALASI District- Araria

¶4

======================================================

¶5

Rupam Jha w/o Awadhesh Pathak r/o village Bhatottar Chakla, PS Barhara Kothi, District Purnea.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanat Kumar Mishra, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar Roy, APP ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER

¶12

2 14-02-2019

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

¶14

learned APP.

¶15

On account of refusal by the learned lower court to discharge in accordance with Section 239 of the CrPC, petitioner has challenged the same under the present petition.

¶16

The allegation so attributed is that there was deposit in Dehti PACS relating to different Government Schemes which was illegally withdrawn by the different accused persons so named therein after hatching a conspiracy and at Serial No.8, there happens to be presence of petitioner, Rupam Jha with an allegation to have withdrawn Rs. 1,50,000/-.

¶17

The case was investigated followed by submission of charge-sheet. At present stage, as is evident, the matter is pending for framing of charge or charge might have been

¶18

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1265 of 2017(2) dt.14-02-2019 2/3

¶19

framed.

¶20

It has been submitted at the end of petitioner that it happens to be out and out a civil dispute and for that, neither prosecution is permissible nor the order of cognizance and in likewise manner, the order impugned also happens to be contrary to the spirit of law. It has further been submitted that there should have been relevant documents at the end of the prosecution in order to attract the relevant Sections whereunder charge is going to be framed as observed by the learned lower court. Mere oral statement of witnesses would not justify the allegation. So, the order is fit to be set aside whereupon, the petitioner be discharged.

¶21

Learned APP opposed the same.

¶22

So far present stage is concerned, paragraph-17 in the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander as reported in (2012)9 SCC 460, it has been held that for the purpose of consideration of the material at the stage of framing of charge, it should be weaker than the prima facie case. From the perusal of the order impugned, it is evident that the learned lower court has properly identified presence of sufficient material under paragraphs-8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 17 of the case diary, which has not been controverted at the end of petitioners. Whether on

¶23

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1265 of 2017(2) dt.14-02-2019 3/3

¶24

account of absence of documentary evidence, conviction could be recorded or not is to be considered by the trial court itself during course of final adjudication of the trial on the basis of materials so available on record and not at the present stage.

¶25

That being so, instant petition sans merit and is

¶26

accordingly, dismissed.

¶27

(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)

¶28

perwez

¶29

U T

Rupam Jha v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rupam Jha v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramawatar Prasad Mandal Vs The State Of Bihar Represented Through Sri Amrit Lal Meena, The Principal Secretary Cum Commissione

Md. Ashiq @ Raj @ Raju Vs The State Of Bihar

M/s. Canon India Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Authorised Representative Mr. M Sivakumar and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Akbar Ali Vs Union Of India

Vikash Kumar and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Birju Thakur and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.