Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 945 (JHR)

Ramesh Ramchandra v. State of Jharkhand

2015-08-11

RAVI NATH VERMA

body2015
Order : The petitioner-Ramesh Ramchandra has challenged the legality of the order dated 20.11.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions JudgeVIII, Dhanbad in S.T. No.411 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner for his 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 written report of the informant-Jawahar Lal, in short, is that he alongwith Raj Kumar Baranwal were the partners of Agro Fresh Flour Mill, Pvt. Ltd. but as some dispute cropped up between them relating to account of company, this informant demanded Rs.10,20,000/of his account from Raj Kumar Baranwal who in order to pay the said amount called him to Dhanbad on 05.02.2011 and he went to Dhanbad for receiving money and met him outside railway station where he found Raj Kumar Baranwal, his brother-in-law Ramesh Ramchandra (petitioner) and two unknown persons there. The said Raj Kumar Baranwal handed over him a cheque of Rs.10,00,000/- of Central Bank which he kept in his hand bag and at about 5.00 p.m. while he was coming back from Dhanbad to Asansol by Burdwan Hatia Passenger and the said train reached Mugma Station, the said Raj Kumar Baranwal called him towards lavatory of the compartment and the other persons including this petitioner followed him. The said Raj Kumar Baranwal started pressing his neck and his hand bag containing the said cheque of Rs.10,00,000/- and cash of Rs.2000/- with railway ticket was snatched. By that time the train reached Kumardhubi Railway Station and all the accused persons stepped down from the train and fled away on two motorcycles. 3. On the basis of the said written report, the aforesaid case bearing Dhanbad G.R.P.S. Case No.14 of 2011 was registered under Sections 341/342/379/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against this petitioner and Raj Kumar Baranwal in the aforesaid Sections. Where-after the court took cognizance of the offence. After commitment of the case to the court of Sessions, a petition under Section 227 of the Code for his discharge was filed by the petitioner and the court below after hearing the parties and examining the evidence and materials on record, rejected the prayer by order impugned. 4. Where-after the court took cognizance of the offence. After commitment of the case to the court of Sessions, a petition under Section 227 of the Code for his discharge was filed by the petitioner and the court below after hearing the parties and examining the evidence and materials on record, rejected the prayer by order impugned. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while assailing the order impugned submitted that the discharge petition filed by the petitioner was rejected by the court below without assigning any cogent reason and without applying judicial mind and that the court has nowhere given any finding that there is sufficient materials or grave suspicion against the petitioner to frame charge. It was also submitted that there is absolutely no material on record to suspect either prima facie case or grave suspicion against this petitioner except the fact that the petitioner is the brother-in-law of the said Raj Kumar Baranwal and he accompanied him and the informant in the train and without discussion as to what prima facie materials are on the record, the court below rejected the petition filed for his discharge which is against the settled law. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; 2011 (1) JLJR (SC) 33 and State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi; 2005 (1) JLJR (SC) 348. 5. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions the learned counsel, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, who has suo moto appeared on behalf of the informant submitted that the court below has rightly considered the sufficiency of material on record against this petitioner and held that the claim of this petitioner shall be considered only after examination of the witnesses during trial. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the order impugned, I find that the court below has not discussed at all the prima facie materials on record. At this stage of framing of charge or discharge, the court has to examine the police report submitted under Section 173 of the Code including the materials collected during the investigation and sufficiency of material on record to frame charge. At this stage of framing of charge or discharge, the court has to examine the police report submitted under Section 173 of the Code including the materials collected during the investigation and sufficiency of material on record to frame charge. It is a settled view that whenever a discharge petition is filed, duty is cast upon the trial court and the court has to apply its mind to the question whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of offence by the accused on the materials available on record and at this stage probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into. But in the instant case, I find that the court below is silent as to what are the prima facie materials against the petitioner to proceed against him. 7. In the circumstances, I find that the order impugned cannot sustain. Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed and the order impugned it is set aside. The matter is remitted to the court below with a direction to pass a fresh order on the petition filed by the petitioner for his discharge without being prejudiced by the order of this court. 8. This criminal revision is, thus, allowed with the above observation.