Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 592 (JHR)

Surendra Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand

2023-04-28

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shweta Singh, learned counsel for the State and Mrs. Manjushree Patra, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.01.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Hazaribag in Criminal Revision No. 64 of 2011 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1272 of 2007, corresponding to T.R. No. 370 of 2011 whereby the order dated 15.02.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Hazaribagh dismissing the complaint petition, has been set aside. 3. The complaint petition has been filed alleging therein that the complainant came in physical possession of land measuring an area of 0.32 acre out 1.02 acres in plot no. 61 under khata no. 92 situated in village Korrah, P.S. and District-Hazaribagh on the basis of purchase of the land through a registered sale deed executed by one Manki Ram Chamar, Jitan Bhuiyan and Chintaman Bhuiyan on 17.06.2006. It was further alleged that when the complainant applied for mutation before Anchal Adhikari, Sadar, he came to know that one fake and forged power of attorney had been executed by one Jamuna Ram, who had falsely personated him as son of late Manki Ram. It was further alleged that such power of attorney was executed in the name of accused no. 7 Md. Jalil, who is in habit to obtain the power of attorney from other persons also like Arti Das in the year, 1966. It was further alleged that the accused persons engineered the shady deals in conspiracy with Anchal Adhikari, Sadar, who was fully knowing the fact that the complainant and others were the bona fide owners on the basis of registered sale-deed. It was further alleged that power of attorney executed in the name of Md. Jalil was quite forged and fabricated. The accused no. 6 Dr. K.K. Sah got transferred 16 decimals of land in his name on the basis of such forged power of attorney. It was further alleged that the accused persons managed before the Anchal Adhikari to got their names mutated without following the proper procedures. The Anchal Authorities also made fake entries in Register-II. On the basis of these allegations, the complaint case has been filed. 4. Mr. It was further alleged that the accused persons managed before the Anchal Adhikari to got their names mutated without following the proper procedures. The Anchal Authorities also made fake entries in Register-II. On the basis of these allegations, the complaint case has been filed. 4. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Judicial Magistrate has examined the matter under section 202 of Cr.P.C. and has been pleased to dismiss the complaint petition by order dated 15.02.2011. He submits that the said order was challenged by the O.P. No. 2 before the learned Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No. 64 of 2011 and the learned Revisional Court set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate and has given direction to issue the summon against the accused persons arrayed in the complaint petition. He further submits that by the order of the learned Revisional Court, the learned Judicial Magistrate vacated the stay passed by this Court in view of “Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency & Another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation” reported in 2018 16 SCC 299 and also issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. He submits that the learned Judicial Magistrate after going through the materials on record has passed that order and the learned Revisional Court has set aside the same and has taken cognizance. 5. Mrs. Manjushree Patra, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that there is no illegality in the revisional court order and the learned revisional court looking into the materials on record has taken cognizance. 6. Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned counsel for the State submits that on the basis of materials on record learned revisional court has taken cognizance. 7. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties the Court has perused the contents of complaint petition, revisional court order dated 18.01.2013 and order dated 15.02.211 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. From perusal of order dated 15.02.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, it transpires that the learned Magistrate after applying judicial mind has passed that order. The Court further finds that the learned Revisional Court by order dated 18.01.2013 set aside that order on the ground that the impugned order appears to be in the form of a full fledged judgment, which was not required at this stage. 8. The Court further finds that the learned Revisional Court by order dated 18.01.2013 set aside that order on the ground that the impugned order appears to be in the form of a full fledged judgment, which was not required at this stage. 8. Looking into the revisional court order, it appears that the said order is itself a full fledged judgment and based on that the learned revisional court set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. 9. If the Revisional Court found that the order of the learned Magistrate is not in accordance with law, he was required to remand back the same to the Judicial Magistrate to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 10. The High Court or Sessions Court in its revisional jurisdiction cannot appraise the evidence, it is the trial court which has to decide whether evidence on record is sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the accused so as to frame charge against him. In this regard reference may be made to the case of “Ashish Chadha V. Asha Kumar” (A.I.R. 2012 S.C. 431). 11. In view of above facts, the order dated 18.01.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Hazaribag in Criminal Revision No. 64 of 2011, so far taking cognizance, is set aside. The revisional court has already set aside the order dated 15.02.0211 of the learned Judicial Magistrate. 12. The matter is remitted back to the learned Judicial Magistrate to pass order afresh in accordance with law without prejudice to the order passed in revision petition. 13. This petition stands allowed in part. Pending, I.A. if any, stands disposed of. Interim order is vacated.