Patna High Court - Orders
Ranjan Kumar Jha & Anr vs State Of Bihar on 28 September, 2010
Author: Rakesh Kumar
Bench: Rakesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.57102 of 2007
1. RANJAN KUMAR JHA JHA SON OF LSHRI GANGA NATH JHA
2. GANGA NATH JHA SON OF LATE HARI NARAYAN JHA
BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE BEHAT, TOLA PATHARAHI, P.S.
MADHEPUR (R.S. SHIVIR), DISTRICT MADHUBANI.
... ... PETITIONERS.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. ANIL KUMAR VERMA S/O LATE LAXMI NARAYAN SRIVASTAVA,
VILLAGE PATHRAHI, P.S. R.S. SHIVIR, DISTRICT
MADHUBANI.
... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES.
-----------
3. 28.9.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners files supplementary affidavit. Keep it on record.
Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 31.10.2007 passed in G.R. No.388 of 2005/Tr. No.2464 of 2007 arising out of Jhanjharpur P.S. Case No.79 of 2005. By the said order, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners for their discharge.
Short fact of the case is that an
F.I.R. was lodged on written statement of
opposite party no.2 for the offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 2 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code on an allegation that the petitioners in connivance with the official of the Electricity Board had got their name entered in respect of electric connection, which was lying in the building of the informant. It was made clear by the informant that the said house was gifted to him and his wife by his father-in- law. After lodging F.I.R., police investigated the same and finally charge sheet was submitted on 15.2.2006. The learned Magistrate, after submission of the charge sheet on 7.8.2006, took cognizance of the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Panel Code. At the stage of charge, a petition for discharge was filed on behalf of both the petitioners and the learned Magistrate, by the impugned order i.e. order dated 30.1.2007, has rejected the discharge petition.
Aggrieved with the order of rejection of discharge petition, petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition. On 16.4.2010, this Court allowed the learned counsel for the petitioners to implead the informant as opposite party no.2 and 3 thereafter, directed for issuance of notice to opposite party no.2.
Shri Manoj Kumar Jha has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2.
Shri Rajni Kant Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has raised several points. While assailing the impugned order, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that building in question was long back purchased by the petitioners. It was submitted that the petitioners were earlier tenant of grand father-in-law of the informant and he was there since 1961 and meter was installed in the year 1964 in the name of grand father-in- law of informant. It was submitted that there were no material on record to proceed with the case. Even then the case was instituted and charge sheet was submitted by the police. It has further been submitted that the informant and petitioners were in litigation terms since long. While referring to paragraph-13 of the petition, it has been argued that earlier a complaint was filed by the brother of the petitioner against the complainant and thereafter, as a counter 4 blast, complaint vide Complaint Case No.65 of 2002 was filed by the informant against the petitioners. It has further been submitted that the learned Magistrate, while passing the impugned order, has not dealt with the arguments which were advanced on behalf of the accused persons and without assigning any reason, by a non speaking order, has rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on this very point, has argued that it was mandatory on the part of the learned Magistrate to pass a reasoned order. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1996(9) SCC 766 (Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration & anr.). He has specifically referred to paragraph-13 of the judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied on a judgment of this Court reported in 2009(3) BLJ 250 (Anil Kumar Nirala & anr. Vs. State of Bihar. On the aforesaid grounds, it has been prayed to quash the order of rejection of discharge petition.
Of course, in the present case, there 5 was no requirement to hear opposite party no.2, but since earlier notice was issued and opposite party no.2 had appeared through his advocate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 was allowed to address the court. It has been opposed by learned counsel for opposite party no.2. It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 that the learned Magistrate has passed a detailed order and there is no infirmity in the order.
Shri Ansarul Haque, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appears on
behalf of the State.
Besides hearing learned counsel for
the parties, I have also perused the
materials available on record. In this case, F.I.R. was filed in the year 2005 and thereafter, the police, after thoroughly investigating the case, had submitted charge sheet vide Charge Sheet No.9 of 2006 dated 15.2.2006 and thereafter, the learned Magistrate, on 7.8.2006, has passed the order of cognizance. At the stage of charge, discharge petition was filed on behalf of the petitioners, which was rejected by order 6 dated 31.10.2007. I have minutely perused the impugned order. In the impugned order, prima facie, I am satisfied that no defect appears. The perusal of the impugned order categorically suggests that the learned Magistrate, while passing the impugned order, had examined the materials, which were brought on record by the investigating agency. Learned Magistrate has specifically referred number of paragraphs of the case diary and thereafter, he had rejected the petition for discharge. I am of the view that while passing the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has not committed any error. In a criminal case, trial is rule and discharge is exception. The learned Magistrate had assigned a detailed reason for rejection of discharge petition. I do not find that present case is a case, which can be categorized as an exceptional or rarest of rare cases. Time without number, it has been held that power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised in exceptional or rarest of rare cases.
In view of the facts and circumstances, the court if of the opinion 7 that there is no material on record warranting exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected.
It was informed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 that in view the fact that matter was pending before this Court till date even charges have not yet been framed. Accordingly, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously so that the matter may come to its logical end without any further delay.
( Rakesh Kumar,J.) N.H./