Rakesh Nandan Sahay vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 4090 Jhar

                                           1




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                            Cr. Revision No. 413 of 2017

                     Rakesh Nandan Sahay               ...   ...  Petitioner
                                         Versus
                     The State of Jharkhand and Anr. ...   ...   Opp. Parties
                                         ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

Through: Video Conferencing

15/29.10.2021

1. Heard Mr. P. P. N. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate.

2. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.-2 Mr. Amitesh Kumar Geasen is present.

3. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri along with Mr. Rahul Saboo, Advocate are also present.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 18.02.2017 refusing to take cognizance pursuant to the protest petition filed by the petitioner is ex-facie perverse and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. He has referred to the findings recorded by the learned court below on the basis of materials on record and has submitted that the petitioner being the victim of the case, was assaulted by the opposite party No.-2 by calling him at his residential office and there was enough materials to constitute a prima-facie case against the opposite party No.-2.

5. The learned senior counsel has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2001 SC 2960 para-15 to submit that the words " sufficient ground" used under Section 202 has to be construed to mean the satisfaction that a prima-facie case is made out against the accused and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction. He has also

referred to other judgments passed in the case reported in (2008) 2 SCC 492; 2006 (1) JLJR 427 (Jhar.); 2013 (1) ST 545 and (2010) 7 SCC 578.

6. The learned senior counsel has also submitted that at the time of summoning the accused pursuant to materials on record collected in complaint case, learned Magistrate cannot look into the police papers for the purposes of dismissing the complaint. He has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court reported in 1979 BBCJ 293 (Patna) and has submitted that the said judgment has been followed by this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 2121/2015 decided on 08.09.2016. The learned counsel has also referred to Section 134 of the Evidence Act to submit that it is not the number of witnesses, but the quality of witness which would matter in criminal case. He submits that the petitioner being the victim and his evidence before the learned court below in complaint case was supported by other witnesses. He submits that though other witnesses were not the eye-witness to the occurrence, but they had seen the petitioner in an injured condition in the residential office of the opposite party No.-2.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.-2 pray for adjournment to advance their argument. They jointly submit that the matter may be posted on 25.11.2021

8. Heard in part.

9. Considering the submission made on the behalf of the opposite parties, the matter is adjourned and is directed to be posted on 25.11.2021 for the argument of the opposite parties.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul