Jharkhand High Court
Suresh Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1662 of 2021
1. Suresh Mahto
2. Basisth Mehta @ Bashisth Mahto ..... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, A.P.P.
------
02/ 02.12.2021 Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for
quashing of the order dated 20.04.2021 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, in Criminal Revision No. 41 of 2019,
whereby the order dated 02.02.2019, passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Daltonganj, in G.R. Case No. 1997 of 2016, arising
out of Nawa Bazar P.S. Case No. 67 of 2016 has been affirmed.
3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that the revisional court has not assigned any reason in
dismissing the revision, as such the revisional order is bad in law.
4. Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State
submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the same is
well founded. She submits that the revisional court has discussed the
evidences and thereafter has affirmed the order.
5. On perusal of the order of the revisional court, it transpires
that the revisional court has dealt with every aspect of the matter. The
concerned court has relied upon certain judgments and discussing
everything has passed the order. There is no illegality. After revisional
order and if there is no illegality, petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
amounts second revision.
6. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Constitution
Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Hardeep Singh Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. and analogous cases, reported in (2014) 3 SCC
92, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras-105 and 106 held as
follows:-
"105. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a
discretionary and an extra- ordinary power. It is to
be exercised sparingly and only in those cases
where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It
is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the
Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other
person may also be guilty of committing that
offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence
occurs against a person from the evidence led
before the court that such power should be
exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.
106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie
case is to be established from the evidence led
before the court not necessarily tested on the anvil
of Cross-Examination, it requires much stronger
evidence than mere probability of his complicity.
The test that has to be applied is one which is more
than prima facie case as exercised at the time of
framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an
extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would
lead to conviction. In the absence of such
satisfaction, the court should refrain from
exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In
Section 319 Cr.P.C. the purpose of providing if 'it
appears from the evidence that any person not
being the accused has committed any offence' is
clear from the words "for which such person could
be tried together with the accused." The words
used are not 'for which such person could be
convicted'. There is, therefore, no scope for the
Court acting under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to form
any opinion as to the guilt of the accused."
7. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Hardeep Singh (Supra) and also looking into the revisional
court's order, there is no illegality in the impugned order. As such no relief
is extended to the petitioners.
8. Accordingly, the aforesaid criminal miscellaneous petition is
dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
