Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Pandey And Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 July, 2015
Author: R.N. Verma
Bench: Ravi Nath Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 711 of 2014
1. Sanjay Pandey, son of Late Kali Pandey
2. Dwarika Pandey, son of Late Shyamlal Pandey
3. Suresh Pandey @ Surendra Pandey son of Late Basudeo Pandey
4. Rameshwar Pandey, son of Late Tulsi Pandey
All residents of village Gumo, Ward No. 19, 20,
PO & PS Tilaiya, District- Koderma .... .... .... Petitioners
--Versus--
State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party
For the petitioner : Ms. Rashmi Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Moti Gope, A.P.P.
For the Informant : M/s Sanjay Kumar Pandey &
Anurag Kumar, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA
-----------
C.A.V. ON: 24/06/2015 PRONOUNCED ON-28/07/2015
The petitioners by filing this revision application has
questioned the legality of the order dated 25.06.2014 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Koderma in G.R. Case No. 309 of 2012
arising out of Jainagar P.S. Case No. 54 of 2012 whereby and
whereunder the petition filed by the petitioners for their discharge
under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the
Code'), has been rejected.
2. It is necessary to give brief background of the case:-
At the instance of the complainant Deepak Singh, a
complaint case was filed, which was subsequently referred by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma to the concerned police station
under Section 156(3) of the Code for institution of a case with
allegations that the land of Khata no. 12, plot no. 112, area 4.42 acres
of Mouza- Mayadih, Koderma was recorded in the name of Pemal
Pandey as receiver of Bakast Lagan in the survey Khatiyan but as the
land in question was relinquished by the ancestors of the petitioners,
the said land was subsequently settled in the name of Durga Singh
and during his lifetime, the Jamabandi was created in respect of the
aforesaid land in the name of Adhin Singh. Accordingly, rent receipt
was also issued by the State and the Register-II was also opened in
the name of Adhin Singh, but the accused persons in order to grab
2
the land have created forged and fabricated documents and have also
removed the original page of Register-II showing the name of Durga
Singh and in that place, placed another page in the Register-II
showing the name of Nanka Pandey in collusion with the Anchal
Karmchari. The accused Sanjay Pandey through R.T.I. had demanded
an information from the Circle Officer, Jainagar and the concerned
authority gave the information that the relevant page of Register-II is
torn and a new page has been placed but there is no signature of any
competent authority on the present page which depicts the name of
Nanku Pandey. At the instance of the accused Sanjay Pandey, a
proceeding under Section 144 of the Code was instituted in the court
of S.D.M., Koderma and after getting notice of that case, the
complainant came to know of the entire forgery and thereafter filed a
petition before the S.D.M., Koderma with a prayer to call for a report
from Circle Officer, Jainagar and from the report of the said Officer,
he came to know that there is an entry in DOT Pen and also reported
that the Old Jamabandi-II, Page-37/01 dated 09.07.1975 and
11.06.1983by which rent receipt was issued are mentioned in DOT Pen though other words of the said page are not in DOT pen. It is also alleged that the said Sanjay Pandey and other accused persons have committed forgery by entering the name of Nanku Pandey in Khatiyan.
3. After investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of I.P.C. against the petitioners whereafter the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. At the stage of framing charge, the petitioners filed the petition for their discharge as indicated above and the court below after providing opportunity to both the parties, rejected their prayer holding that from perusal of case diary at para-9, 10, 11, 12 and 17 and also the report of the C.O. at paragraph-26 of the case diary, it appears that there is sufficient material available on record against the accused persons for further proceedings and framing charge.
34. Assailing the order impugned, Ms. Rashmi Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that even if all the allegations incorporated in the complaint are taken to be true, even then no offence is made out against the petitioners as the dispute between the parties is civil in nature and that the court below while dismissing the petition for the discharge of the petitioners has not considered the evidences available on record and the report of Circle Officer in right perspective and merely because some entries have been made in DOT Pen, it cannot be inferred that those entries have been made by the petitioners in the official record and no cogent reason has been assigned. In support of her contention, learned counsel has relied on judgment reported in 2009 (4) JLJR 75 (SC); Md. Ibrahim & others Vs. State of Bihar and others.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party and also the learned counsel representing the State controverted the grounds advanced by the petitioner and submitted that from the allegations made in the First Information Report and confirmation thereto after the investigation clearly constitute strong prima facie case and grave suspicion against the accused persons for committing offences.
6. From perusal of the order impugned, it is quite clear that the learned court below had considered the materials before it including the allegations and averments made in the complaint petition as well as the evidences collected during course of investigation and came to the conclusion that sufficient materials are available on record to proceed against the petitioners and to frame charge.
7. The case diary was called for from the court concerned and on perusal of different paragraphs of the case diary, it appears that there is sufficient material on record to frame charges against the petitioners. The report of the Circle Officer is kept at paragraph 26 of the case diary and it appears that the said report as well as the witnesses examined during investigation have all supported the 4 allegation made in the complaint. Obviously at this stage, roving enquiry or meticulous examination is not possible rather the Court has to see only the strong prima facie case and grave suspicion. In a case Ashish Chadha Vs. Smt. Asha Kumari; 2012(1) JLJR 179 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "it is the trial court, which has to decide whether evidence on record is sufficient to make out a prima faice case against the accused so as to frame charge against him and the High Court has no jurisdiction sitting in its revision to reappraise the evidences available on record. The Hon'ble Supreme court further held that even the trial court cannot conduct roving enquiry and fishing enquiry into the evidence. It has only to consider whether the evidence collected by the prosecution discloses prima facie case against the accused or not."
8. The aforesaid finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is based on the observations made by the Supreme Court in Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajsthan and another; (2001) 9 SCC 631 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
"We find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the first information report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. "
9. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, this revision application is dismissed.
(R.N. Verma, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, 28th July, 2015 Ritesh/N.A.F.R.