Patna High Court
Uma Shankar Jha & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 8 September, 2011
Author: Amaresh Kumar Lal
Bench: Amaresh Kumar Lal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Revision No.291 of 2002
==================================================
1. Uma Shankar Jha, son of Late Balmukund Jha
2. Most. Yogmaya Devi, wife of Late Balmukund Jha.
(both residents of Barhiya Dhanraj Tola, Ward No.9, P.S.-
Barhiya, District- Lakhisarai).
3. Ravindra Nath Singh, son of Late Babu Shyam Narayan Singh,
resident of Barhiya Ward No.2, Sri Kant Tola, P.S.-Barhiya,
District-Lakhisarai.
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Jata Shankar Jha, son of Late Balmukund Jha, resident of
Barhiya Dhanraj Tola, Ward No.9, P.S.-Barhiya, District-
Lakhisarai.
.... .... Opposite Parties
==================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR
LAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL)
Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. The accused petitioners have preferred this revision
application against the order dated 17.01.2002 passed by
the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai
in Complaint Case No.288 C/2001 by which a prima-facie
case has been found against them for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 477/34 of the
I.P.C. and order has been passed for issuance of summons
against them.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.291 of 2002 dt.08-09-2011
2
The case of the complainant-opposite party no.2 is
that the land bearing Khata No.318, Plot No.994, Area 70
decimals situated in Mauza-Panchmahla Jalalpur Mahal,
Nauranga Pargana, Gayaspur is an ancestral joint property
of the complainant, but the accused Uma Shankar Jha and
Mostt. Yogmaya Devi have sold 25 decimals of land out of
70 decimals of land to the accused Ravindra Nath Singh
(petitioner no.3) dishonestly and fraudulently on 5.09.1995
stating therein that the complainant Jata Shankar Jha is
dead and there has been private partition between the
complainant and the accused petitioners. The matter of
sale had been kept secret from the complainant. When
there was survey under Mauza-Panchmahla, Jalalpur
Mahul, Nauranga Pargana, Gayaspur, the complainant
came to know about the aforesaid sale deed. It has also
been alleged that from the Survey Office, the complainant
could know that 33 decimals of land out of that land has
been mutated in favour of Shanti Devi and Radha Devi,
whereas, no sale deed has been executed in their favour.
The accused persons have made conspiracy to oust the
complainant from her legal right to possess the land which
has caused a loss of Rs.80,000/-to the complainant. A
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.291 of 2002 dt.08-09-2011
3
complaint petition was filed in the court of learned
A.C.J.M, Lakhisarai. On 11.09.2001, the statement of the
complainant on solemn affirmation was recorded and the
case was adjourned for examination of the enquiry
witnesses. On 20.10.2001, the case was transferred to the
court of learned S.D.J.M, Lakhisarai under Section 192 (2)
Cr.P.C. for inquiry and disposal. After the inquiry, the
learned Magistrate has found a prima-facie case against
the accused vide the impugned order.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that wrong facts have been mentioned in the
complaint petition. After the death of Bal Mukund Jha, the
property were divided amongst his co-sharers orally and it
has also been submitted that in the sale-deed, the
complainant Jata Shankar Jha has not been shown as dead,
which has been misread by the complainant. He has filed a
copy of the sale-deed executed by Uma Shankar Jha and
Yogmaya Devi. The leaned Magistrate should not have
summoned the petitioners as no case is made out against
them.
The learned counsel for the State as well as opposite
party has submitted that at the time of taking cognizance
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.291 of 2002 dt.08-09-2011
4
and issuance of summons against the accused, the learned
Magistrate is required to see only a prima-facie case
against them. It is not required that the learned Magistrate
should consider whether the evidence against them will
lead to their conviction or not. It has been further
submitted that it appears from the complaint petition, the
statement of the accused on solemn affirmation and the
three witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant
that a prima-facie case is made out against the accused
petitioners. No interference is required at this stage.
After hearing the learned counsels for both the
parties and on perusal of the materials on the record, it
appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the
opposite parties is correct. At the stage of finding a prima-
facie case, the learned Magistrate is not required to
examine the evidence meticulously as to whether it would
lead to the conviction of the accused or not. It is only
required to see as to whether a prima-facie case is made
out against the accused or not. In this case, the learned
Magistrate has considered the complaint petition, the
statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and
the witnesses examined under the inquiry and the learned
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.291 of 2002 dt.08-09-2011
5
Magistrate has also made query from the witnesses.
Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not
find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This
revision application is dismissed. However, the petitioners
are at liberty to raise their grievance at the time of framing
of charge.
( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)
Patna High Court, Patna
Dated the 8th September, 2011
NAFR/V.K. Pandey