Jharkhand High Court
Jitendra Nath Mahato vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No. 1089 of 2015
Jitendra Nath Mahato , s/o late Upendra Nath Mahato, r/o village-
Dongadaha, PO-Singpura, PS-Gurabanda, District-East
Singhbhum (Jharkhand) ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
With
Cr.M.P No. 1142 of 2013
Bhola Nath Mishra, s/o late Hari Pada Mishra, r/o village-
Narsingarh, PO & PS-Dhalbhumgarh, District-Singhbhum East
(Jharkhand) ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Shiv Shankar Pal, s/o late Govardhan Pal, r/o Kapadiha, PO &
PS-Jharpokharia, District-Mayurbhanj,Orissa ... Opposite Parties
---------
(Through V.C )
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Shahdeo, Advocate
[in Criminal Revision No. 1089 of 2015]
Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
[in Cr.M.P No. 1142 of 2013]
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, APP
[in Criminal Revision No. 1089 of 2015]
Mrs. Shweta Singh, APP
[in Criminal Revision No. 1089 of 2015]
---------
Order No.17/Dated: 28th January 2022
Cr.M.P No.1142 of 2013
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 13 th
January 2012 passed in G.R No.65 of 2009 by which cognizance of
the offence under sections 467/468/471/120-B/34 of the Indian
Penal Code has been taken and summons are issued to him
besides seven other accused persons.
2. Bahragora (Gurabanda) PS Case No.16 of 2009 was
lodged on 15th February 2009 on the basis of a written complaint
submitted by Shiv Shankar Pal to the officer-in-charge of
Gurabanda PS, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur on the same day.
In his written complaint, Shiv Shankar Pal has made allegations
against the petitioner and other eight persons who according to
him were involved in registering the land admeasuring about 15.71
2 Cr. Rev. No. 1089 of 2015 with Cr.M.P No. 1142 of 2013
acres belonging to him in the name of M/s Pradip Kumar Nirmal
Kumar Jain. After the investigation a charge-sheet was laid against
nine persons including the petitioner and cognizance of the offence
under sections 467/468/471/420/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal
Code was taken on 17th June 2009 and summons were issued
against the accused Atikai Basuri.
3. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned for the petitioner,
submits that it is mandated in law that the order taking
cognizance should reflect application of mind and the Court taking
cognizance must record its satisfaction before summons for
appearance are issued to the accused. The learned counsel for the
petitioner relies on the judgment in "GHCL Employees Stock Trust
v. India Infoline Ltd." (2013) 4 SCC 505 to fortify his submission.
4. The learned counsel has referred to the judgments in
"Md. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar" (2009) 8 SCC 751 and "CBI v. K.
Narayana Rao" (2012) 9 SCC 512 to contend that even on admitted
facts no case is made out against the petitioner and while so the
order taking cognizance must be held bad qua the petitioner.
5. Mrs. Shweta Singh, the learned APP, submits that the
applications for discharge filed on behalf of Pradip Kumar Jain,
Jitendra Nath Mahato and Ranjit Mahato have already been
dismissed vide order dated 22nd January 2013. The allegation
levelled against the accused persons is that they entered into a
criminal conspiracy to sell the lands belongings to the informant to
Pradip Kumar Jain by preparing forged and fabricated documents
and not only charges have been framed the trial has commenced.
6. At this stage, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel
for the petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw the criminal
miscellaneous petition with liberty to the petitioner to raise all
such pleas which are available to him in law at appropriate stage
by filing appropriate petitions.
7. Prayer is granted.
8. Without observing anything on the merits of the matter,
Cr.M.P No.1142 of 2013 is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner
as prayed for. It is further made clear that withdrawal of this
3 Cr. Rev. No. 1089 of 2015 with Cr.M.P No. 1142 of 2013
criminal miscellaneous petition by the petitioner shall not cause
any prejudice to him if he files an application for discharge, if so
advised.
9. Interim order dated 27th August 2013 passed in Cr.M.P
No.1142 of 2013 stands vacated.
Criminal Revision No. 1089 of 2015
10. Post this matter on 11th February 2022.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
Amit/
