Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 932 (JHR)

Raghwendra Mishra v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-04-25

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. The instant application is directed against the order dated 18.09.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Dhanbad in connection with G.R. No.256 of 2014 arising out of Dhanbad P.S. Case No.63 of 2014 dated 17.01.2014 whereby the learned court below has framed charge against the petitioner under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 18.09.2014 passed by the learned court below whereby the learned court below has rejected the discharge petition dated 05.08.2014 filed on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Mr. Shishir Suman, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no case is made out against the petitioner and his petition for discharge has been rejected without appreciation of record. He has further submitted that the learned court below has erred in law in disposing his discharge petition and by framing the charge on the same day. 3. The learned APP appears on behalf of the State and submits that from the impugned order it is clear that in the present case, the investigating officer has submitted charge-sheet after due investigation against the accused person under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Dhanbad after going through the material and evidences available in the FIR, charge-sheet and case diary, which are available on record, has found a prima facie case under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code to be made out against the accused petitioner and has accordingly taken cognizance of the offence against him. It has further been stated that from perusal of the case diary and the enclosures of the FIR discloses that the petitioner has collected the dues of the informant from the said owner Nityanand of the said ''Jharkhand-Raipur Carrier''. Though in para-108 of the case diary the accused has stated his innocence before the I.O. but the witnesses in para 2, 6, 7, 26, 120, 133 and 135 of the case diary, have fully supported the prosecution case. 4. It is a settled principle of law that if the Court finds a prima facie case and grave suspicion to proceed against the accused, the charge has to be framed but if there is no prima facie case or suspicion, the Court shall discharge the accused. 4. It is a settled principle of law that if the Court finds a prima facie case and grave suspicion to proceed against the accused, the charge has to be framed but if there is no prima facie case or suspicion, the Court shall discharge the accused. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution without allowing the prosecution to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision as reported in (2010) 9 SCC 368 in the case of Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation at paragraph no.19, which is quoted hereinunder: "19. It is clear that at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce proves the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial." 5. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, I find that after perusing the materials available on record, the learned court below has satisfied itself and framed the charge against the accused person. In my considered view, I do not find any infirmity in the order impugned hence, the instant revision application is dismissed.