The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that mere pendency of a title suit cannot be grounds for claiming discharge from the offense of theft, unless and until there is an order of competent Court that it was the accused who was in possession, and the informant had lodged the case maliciously as such no relief can be granted at the stage of discharge.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that it was alleged in the FIR that the theft of paddy was committed by Roshan Hazam and his father Anuj Hazam with other unnamed accused persons on the field of an informant. Furthermore, the chargesheet was submitted under Section 379 of the IPC against both the named accused persons. A discharge Petition was filed, however, the same was rejected on the ground that a prima facie case was made out against the accused persons. Aggrieved by this, the present criminal revision Petition is filed.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the mere existence of a title suit cannot serve as a basis for claiming discharge from the offence of theft until competent court orders that the informant filed the case with malicious intent and that the accused was the one in possession. Until this happens, no relief can be given at the discharge stage.
The court furthermore observed that a plea of title and/or possession in defense can be considered during trial and not at the time of framing of charge.
Based on these considerations, the court didn’t find any merit in the criminal revision.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the criminal revision.
Case Title: Roshan Hazam @ Roshan Baraik V. . The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Cr. Revision No. 493 of 2019
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Juhi Kumari, Amicus Curiae
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. P.P.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
