Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 126 (JHR)

Md. Istiyak @ Md. Isteyak v. State of Jharkhand

2022-02-02

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2022
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned A.C. to G.A.-III appearing for the State. 2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 08.03.2021, passed in Criminal Revision No. 34 of 2018, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Chatra, whereby the order dated 03.05.2018 passed in Complaint Case No. 731 of 2016 by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chatra has been confirmed. 4. The Complaint Case No. 731 of 2016 has been filed stating therein that on 27.09.2015 at about 6.30 A.M., this petitioner went to the shop of Manish Mistry for purchasing kerosene oil and fertilizer. The accused persons were present in the house of Manish Mistry, who have surrounded this petitioner and Santan Sao pointed pistol upon him and abused him and further Surajdeo Yadav also abused and extended threatening and used to filthy language against this petition. On finding himself surrounded by accused person, this petitioner got afraid and prayed them for his life and in the meantime Binod Yadav and Aditya Mistry caught hold him and snatched Rs. 5,000/-from the pocket of this petitioner. Thereafter all the accused persons assaulted him with fists, slaps and sticks. On alarm raised by this petitioner, several villagers gathered there, who have witnessed the occurrence and when some of them tried to intervene the matter, Santan Sao made firing and abused and in the meantime Surajdeo Yadav, who was the then Mukhiya has also abused and extended threatening. Surajdeo Yadav has demanded ransom for Rs.15,000/- and on being asked by Surajdeo Yadav, accused persons have assaulted the witnesses also, who have also sustained injuries. Surajdeo Yadav and Chandradeo Yadav have abused and extended threatening. 5. The aforesaid complaint was sent to the police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., in which, final form was submitted, stating therein that no material is found against the accused persons and it was also disclosed that this is a false case. Surajdeo Yadav and Chandradeo Yadav have abused and extended threatening. 5. The aforesaid complaint was sent to the police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., in which, final form was submitted, stating therein that no material is found against the accused persons and it was also disclosed that this is a false case. On the protest of the petitioner, the learned Trial Court has taken cognizance only against three persons and against the rest persons, cognizance has not been taken. However, the said order was challenged by the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 34 of 2018, which was dismissed vide order dated 08.03.2021 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Chatra. 6. The Court has perused the revisional order, from which, it transpires that the revisional court has appreciated all the grounds and thereafter has come to the conclusion that no materials are available against the accused persons except three and has rightly taken cognizance against three accused persons only. 7. In view of the above, there is no illegality in the revisional order. It is well settled that in the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C., second revision is not maintainable. As such, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed.