Parmeshwar Jha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Revision No.70 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- DARBHANGA ===========================================================
1. Parmeshwar Jha S/O Bsdudeo Jha R/O vill.-Mauje Nayagaon(west)Brahmchari Tola,P.S-Raiyam Distt.-Darbhanga(Bihar) .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rajesh Jha
3. Sanjay Jha 2 and 3 are Sons of Manrakhan Jha , residents of village-Nayagaon,P.S-Raiyam Distt.-Darbhanga .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Subhash Kumar Mishra For the State : Mr. Uday Pratap Singh For O. P. Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Mirtunjay Kumar =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH JUDGMENT AND ORDER ORAL Date: 23-06-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel representing the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order, dated 28.11.2014, passed, by learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge IV, Darbhanga, in Sessions Trial No. 375 of 2014, arising out of Raiyam Police Station Case No. 08 of 2013, whereby he has allowed an application filed on behalf of
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.70 of 2015 dt.23-06-2017 2/3 Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3, under Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'), and has accordingly discharged them.
3. The Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 are named accused in Raiyam Police Station Case No. 08 of 2013, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341/323/324/307/448/504/506/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The petitioner is the informant of said Raiyam Police Station Case No. 08 of 2013. It is alleged in the First Information Report that on the date of occurrence, the accused persons, including Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3, entered into the petitioner's house and started assaulting the informant, leading to injuries. It is also alleged in the First Information Report that they took away cash and certain other articles from the house.
5. The Police, upon completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet on 11.06.2013 against Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3, which was subsequently accepted. Thereafter, the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 filed an application under Section 227 of the Code, which has been allowed by the impugned order.
6. From the impugned order, I find that the learned Court below has disbelieved the case of the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.70 of 2015 dt.23-06-2017 3/3 prosecution only on the ground that there was some land dispute between the accused persons and the informant existing. The learned Court below noticed, on the basis of the case diary, that some of the witnesses could not be said to be the eye-witnesses.
7. The grounds, which have been mentioned in the impugned order for exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code, are not, at all, sustainable. The learned Court below ought not have gone into the question of correctness of allegation in the First Information Report while entertaining the application of Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 227 of the Code.
8. The impugned order, dated 28.11.2014, therefore, cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Court below to pass an order afresh on the petitioner's application under Section 227 of the Code and proceed thereafter accordingly.
9. This application is allowed.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 28.06.2017 Transmission Date 28.06.2017