Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2189 (JHR)

Jiya Ram Marandi v. State of Jharkhand

2017-12-19

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 19.8.2013, passed in P.C.R. No. 387 of 2012, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur, by which the complaint petition has been dismissed under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. 3. It has been alleged that on 24.11.2016 the statement of the complainant was recorded, upon which, U.D. Case No.8 of 2006 was instituted. In course of enquiry, the complainant had disclosed that on 20.11.2006 at about 9 : P.M. his younger son Manoj Marandi had gone to attend the tribal cultural programme within the campus of Palajori Block. The son of the complainant did not return and on 24.11.2006, the complainant heard a rumor that near Palajori Block Nursery in a well, a dead body is lying. The complainant went and identified the dead body as that of his son-Manoj Marandi. He suspected that it was an accidental death because there was no guard wall in the well. Since from perusal of the post mortem report, the death was caused on account of injuries and shock, it was opined to be a homicidal death and therefore Palajori P.S. Case No. 14 of 2007 was instituted. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against only Manager Hembrum and O.P. Nos. 2 to 6 were not sent up for trial. At this, a protest petition was filed by the complainant which was registered as P.C.R. Case No. 387 of 2012, in which it was alleged that the Manager Hembrum along with O.P. Nos. 2 to 6 had wanted the deceased Manoj Marandi to accompany them but they were prevented by Suhagin Soren and Malti Marandi. Allegation has been levelled that they had seen Manager Hembrum taking away the deceased Manoj Marandi with him in a motorcycle and the rest five accused persons had followed the said motorcycle on two other motorcycles. The complainant apart from being examined under solemn affirmation had also produced three witnesses who were examined in course of enquiry and thereafter vide order dated 19.8.2013, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur had dismissed the complaint petition under Section 203 Cr.P.C. 4. The complainant apart from being examined under solemn affirmation had also produced three witnesses who were examined in course of enquiry and thereafter vide order dated 19.8.2013, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur had dismissed the complaint petition under Section 203 Cr.P.C. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned court below had committed an error of law in discussing in details the entire facets of the case while dismissing the complaint petition under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. It has further been submitted that at the stage of initiation of the complaint case, only a prima facie satisfaction is required to proceed with the trial and not an exhaustive discussion of the evidence available on record. It has also been submitted that the court seemed oblivious to the fact that it was premature to have, delivered almost a final verdict on the fate of the O.P. Nos. 2 to 6, which being not permissible in the eyes of law, order dated 19.8.2013 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for O.P. Nos. 2 to 6 has stated that O.P. Nos. 2 to 6 were implicated on account of land dispute. 6. It has been submitted that after investigation, police had found the case true only against Manager Hembrom and not against the other accused persons and had rightly submitted final form. Learned counsel thus prays for dismissal of the present application. 7. Impugned order dated 19.8.2013 seems to have discussed threadbare the pros and cons of the case as if the learned court below was considering the innocence or otherwise of O.P. Nos. 2 to 6 after the trial. The complaint petition specifically reveals about the O.P. Nos. 2 to 6 following the motorcycle of Manager-Hembrom, in which deceased Manoj Marandi was riding pillion. 8. In the case of Fiona Shrikhande VS. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in (2013) 14 SCC 44 which was with respect to the stage for issuance of process and the primary considerations, which are to be made at that stage has been held to be as follows:- "11. We are, in this case, concerned only with the question as to whether, on a reading of the-complaint, a prima facie case has been made out or not to issue process by the Magistrate. We are, in this case, concerned only with the question as to whether, on a reading of the-complaint, a prima facie case has been made out or not to issue process by the Magistrate. The law as regards issuance of process in criminal cases is well settled. At the complaint stage, the Magistrate is merely concerned with the allegations made out in the complaint and has only to prima facie satisfy whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused and it is not the province of the Magistrate to enquire into a detailed discussion on the merits or demerits of the case. The scope of enquiry under Section 202 is extremely limited in the sense that the Magistrate, at this stage, is expected to examine prima facie the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint. The Magistrate is not expected to embark upon a detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of the case, but only consider the inherent probabilities apparent on the statement made in the complaint. In Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, this Court held that once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion in forming an opinion that there is ground for proceeding, it is not for the Higher Courts to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate. The Magistrate has to decide the question purely from the point of view of the complaint, without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have". 9. It was indicated in the aforesaid judgment, under reference, that the Magistrate is not to embark upon a detail discussions of the merits or demerits of the case, which precisely has been done by the learned Magistrate. Learned Magistrate seems to have travelled beyond the parameters necessary for considering the presence of criminality so as to prima . facie satisfy himself for further proceeding against the accused in the case. Such circumstances, therefore, makes the impugned order dated 19.8.2013 unsustainable in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned court below to pass a fresh order in accordance with law as also in accordance with the principles governing consideration of a complaint case, which also has been noted in the preceding paragraphs. 10. This application stands allowed.