Jharkhand High Court
Raj Kumar Yadav And Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 26 August, 2015
Author: R.N. Verma
Bench: Ravi Nath Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 745 of 2015
------------
1. Raj Kumar Yadav, son of Sri Uddan Yadav, resident of Village
Tarwan, P.O. & P.S. Jainagar, District Koderma
2. Anju Devi, wife of Raj Kumar Yadav, resident of Village Tarwan,
P.O. & P.S. Jainagar, District Koderma
3. Rajdeo Rajak, son of Ram Prasad Rajak, resident of Village
Tarwan, P.O. & P.S. Jainagar, District Koderma
4. Nandlal Yadav @ Nandlal Mahto, son of Badhan Yadav, resident
of Village Tarwan, P.O. & P.S. Jainagar, District Koderma
... ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Ranjit Kumar Bharti, son of Sri Visun Dhobi, resident of Village
Santh, P.O. & P.S. Jainagar, District Koderma
... ... ... Opp. Parties
------------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA
For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Verma, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P.
------------
05/26.08.2015Challenge in this revision application is to the order dated 21.04.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma in G.R. Case No.376 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner for their discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code'), has been rejected.
2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the First Information Report lodged at the instance of the informant Ranjit Kumar Bharti, in short, is that on 29th April, 2011 at about 5.00 p.m. when he was engaged in his personnel job at the door of his house, Raj Kumar Yadav (petitioner no.1), Anju Devi (petitioner no.2-Mukhiya) and wife of Raj Kumar Yadav along with their associates armed with Lathi and Danda came thee and started abusing by saying "Sala Dhobi Bahut Bada Patrakar Ban Gaya Hai. Mere Khilaf Chhapne Ka Himmat Kaise Kiya" and thereafter when the informant resisted not to accuse him, they entered into his house. After hearing hulla, when several local people assembled there, the said Raj Kumar Yadav and Anju Devi along with their associates again by abusing the cast of the informant reiterated "Shala Dhobi Tumhara Sab Patrakarita Bhula 2 Cr. Revision No.745 of 2015 Denge" and left the place by giving threatening of dire consequences and insulting him by addressing 'Dhobi Jati'. The reason behind the incident is that on 28.04.2011 the villagers had made complaint against the Mukhiya to B.D.O. for non supplying of forms of A.P.L./B.P.L. card and this news was published at the instance of the informant in Hindustan newspaper. As a retaliation, this incidence took place.
3. It appears from the record that on the basis of the said allegation Koderma P.S. (S.C. and S.T.) Case No.11 of 2011 was lodged under Sections 341, 323, 448, 504/34 and also under Section 3/4 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After investigation the police submitted the charge sheet. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, accordingly took cognizance of the offence against the petitioners. When the matter was committed to the court of Sessions, a petition was filed for discharge of the petitioners before the Special Court and the court below after hearing both the parties rejected the prayer for discharge by the order impugned dated 21.04.2015. Hence, this revision.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assailing the order impugned seriously contended that the discharge petition filed by the petitioners in the court below was rejected in limine without assigning any reason and showing any prima facie case or substantial material to frame charge and that the order passed by the court below is without application of judicial mind. As such it is illegal, uncalled for and liable to be set aside. It was also submitted that the court below failed to appreciate that none of the ingredients responsible to constitute an offence under the Special Act- Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was available on record but the court below in a mechanical manner passed the order impugned and there is absolutely no evidence on record to frame charge against the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel representing the State supported the findings recorded by the court below and submitted that the statement 3 Cr. Revision No.745 of 2015 made by the informant prima facie made out a case under the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act also. Hence, the revision application has no merit.
6. From bare perusal of the order impugned, it is amply clear that the court below has not applied its judicial mind before passing the order impugned and has not recorded what are those prima facie materials or grave suspicion available on record to frame charge against the petitioners. The relevant part of the order of the court below is reproduced herein below:-
"The documents and the statements those were found annexed in the written report dated 29.04.2011 of Ranjeet Kr. Bharti indeed discloses the fact that they had committed some wrong which are punishable under SC/ST Act besides the other offences of I.P.C. but the offence of SC/ST Act is not applicable against the Rajdeo Rajak as he himself was member of the same community to which the informant belongs so according to legislative mandate the offence punishable under SC/ST Act is not applicable against him. So far as others are concerned the same may be attractable. Hence, finding the evidence as such prima facie on the record I do feel not to appreciate the prayer of contention given in the petition. The prayer, therefore, made for their discharge deserves no appreciation at all."
7. The aforesaid observation of the court below clearly indicates that the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court have not at all been followed by the court below. It is a settled law that whenever any discharge petition is filed, it is the duty of the trial court to point out what are those prima facie materials available on record to frame charge against the accused persons. In the instant case, the court below has not at all discussed or considered the circumstances and the sufficiency of materials to frame charge. Needless to say, that a roving enquiry or meticulous examination of materials available on record is not to be looked into at this stage but the court has to give a finding as to what are those materials or evidence available against the petitioners. The court has only to look into the evidence collected by 4 Cr. Revision No.745 of 2015 the Investigating Officer and submitted with the case diary and charge sheet under Section 173 of the Code.
8. In the circumstances, I find that the order impugned cannot sustain. Accordingly, it is set aside. The matter is remitted to the court concerned with a direction to pass a fresh order on the petition already filed by the petitioners under Section 227 of the Code applying his judicial mind without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.
9. The criminal revision is, thus, allowed with the above observations.
(R.N. Verma, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, 26th August, 2015 Anit/N.A.F.R.