Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1798 (JHR)

Madan Lal v. The State of Jharkhand

2025-09-01

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2025
JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , with a prayer to quash the order dated 18.01.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Sonari P.S. Case No.14 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No.259 of 2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate rejected the petition for discharge filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C by the petitioner and also to quash the order dated 24.02.2018 passes by learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Criminal Revision No.93 of 2017, whereby and whereunder learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur dismissed the said Cr. Revision No.93 of 2017 filed against the order dated 18.01.2017 passed in aforesaid case. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner while posted as Supervisor of Jamshedpur Head Post Office, in connivance with the co- accused Suparna Pal committed forgery of official records and committed criminal breach of trust by illegally withdrawing Rs.1,44,14,268/- of the different depositors from their accounts kept with the Postal Department at Sonari Main Post Office. Police after investigation of the case submitted charge-sheet against Suparna Pal and subsequently supplementary charge- sheet was submitted against the petitioner and other co-accused persons also. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 239 of Cr.P.C . The same was taken up by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, who vide order dated 18.01.2017 dismissed the same, after considering the serious nature of direct allegation against the petitioner and observing that there is no requirement of any sanction for prosecution, as the offence committed by the petitioner cannot be linked to the discharge of his official duty; as fabricating the false records and misappropriating the public funds cannot be termed, as the discharge of official duty of any public servant. In this respect the learned Judicial Magistrate relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shambhoo Nath Misra vs. State of U.P. & Others, (1997) 5 SCC 326 . 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed Cr. In this respect the learned Judicial Magistrate relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shambhoo Nath Misra vs. State of U.P. & Others, (1997) 5 SCC 326 . 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed Cr. Revision No.93 of 2017 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur and the learned Sessions Judge considered that though the transactions were made mainly by co-accused Suparna Pal but it could not have been possible without the active connivance inter alia of the petitioner because the money was allowed to be withdrawn in violation of Rules and norms of Post Office, which do not permit cash transaction beyond Rs.20,000/-; though in fact, in this case cash transaction beyond Rs.20,000/- was allowed and thus considering the same, the learned Sessions Judge, dismissed the said Criminal Revision. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is not true. There was no illegality or irregularity committed in any of transactions and with the limited role of the petitioner in the whole transaction, no criminal liability can be attributed to the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted the prayer as prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioner be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that there is direct, specific and serious allegation against the petitioner and the contention of the petitioner that he is innocent, is the defence of the petitioner which cannot be considered in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is lastly submitted that the instant Cr.M.P. being without any merit be dismissed. 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the contention of the petitioner that he is innocent and has not committed any offence is a defence which can only be considered in the full dress trial of the case. 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the contention of the petitioner that he is innocent and has not committed any offence is a defence which can only be considered in the full dress trial of the case. It is a settled principle of law that the defence of an accused person and the veracity of the evidence put forth by him, cannot be considered in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court, as that would be the job of the trial court, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors. 2004 (2) Supreme 501 . 8. It is also a settled principle of law that in exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC, the genuine prosecution cannot be stifled with as has been held in the case of Dr. Monica Kumar and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2008) 8 SCC 781 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Harjinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1029 Para-11 which reads as under:- “11. The primary argument of Respondent no. 2 rests on his alibi. An alibi, however, is a plea in the nature of a defence; the burden to establish it rests squarely on the accused. Here, the documents relied upon, parking chit, chemist's receipt, OPD card, CCTV clip, have yet to be formally proved. Until that exercise is undertaken, they remain untested pieces of paper. To treat them as conclusive at the threshold would invert the established order of criminal proceedings, requiring the Court to pronounce upon a defence before the prosecution is allowed to lead its full evidence. Even assuming the documents will eventually be proved, their face value does not eclipse the prosecution version. The parking slip is timed at 06:30 a.m. the chemist's bill and CCTV images are from 12 : 09 p.m. The confrontation is alleged at 08 : 30 a.m. A road journey from Jagowal to Chandigarh of roughly ninety kilometres in a private vehicle can comfortably be accomplished within the intervening window. More importantly, abetment to suicide is not an offence committed at a single moment. More importantly, abetment to suicide is not an offence committed at a single moment. It may consist of a build-up of psychological pressure culminating in self-destruction, and the law punishes that build-up wherever and whenever it occurs. (Emphasis supplied) Has observed that the defence of the accused person of the case cannot be considered before prosecution adduces evidence. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner in connivance with the co-accused Suparna Pal was instrumental in commission of cheating and criminal breach of trust of huge amount of Government money of Rs.1,44,14,268/-. The allegations against the petitioner were found to be true by the Police in the investigation of the case. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that neither the learned Judicial Magistrate has committed any illegality in rejecting the petition under Section 239 for discharging petitioner nor the learned Sessions Judge has committed any illegality in dismissing the Cr. Revision No.93 of 2017 along with the other Cr. Revisions of the co-accused persons by the common order dated 24.02.2018. 10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the meanwhile charge has already been framed and his case is already fixed for evidence but the petitioner has not challenged the charge framed against him and is facing the trial. 11. Keeping in view the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case warranting interference of this Court with the impugned orders in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 12. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.