Birendra Kumar Singh vs The Union Of India Through Central ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2253 Jhar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                W.P. (Cr.) No. 184 of 2023
                     Birendra Kumar Singh                        ... Petitioner
                                            -Versus-
                1.   The Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation, Economic
                     Offence Wing, New Delhi
                2.   The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation,
                     A.C.B., Ranchi                             ... Respondents
                                              -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

            For the Petitioner          : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate
            For the CBI                 : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I.
                                              -----

05/05.07.2023        Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I., appearing for the CBI.

2. This petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated

16.02.2023 passed in M.C.A. No.7486 of 2022, arising from RC 01A/2012-R,

pending in the court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate cum

Special Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

3. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that by the impugned order, the learned court has rejected the

petition filed under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. He submits that although the

said section is elaborated but only the case and submission of the

petitioner as well as CBI has been recorded, but the finding is not there

with regard to Section 205 of the Cr.P.C., however the learned court has

held that the petitioner can entitle for such exemption under Section 317 of

the Cr.P.C. He further submits that charge-sheet has also been submitted.

He relied upon the judgments passed in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v.

Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. & others; [(2001) 7 SCC 401] and in

Puneet Dalmia v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad;

[(2020) 12 SCC 695].

4. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the CBI submits that

the learned court has rightly passed the order and no interference is

required at this stage, as summon has only been issued.

5. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the

Court has gone through the impugned order dated 16.02.2023 and finds

that why the petition under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. is not maintainable, is

not discussed therein and the learned court has further held that the

petitioner can avail remedy under Section 317 of the Cr.P.C. The said stage

has not yet come as the petitioner has not appeared before the learned

court and Section 317 of the Cr.P.C. come into operation once the accused

appeared before the learned court.

6. In view of the above two judgments as relied by the learned counsel

for the petitioner and considering that the impugned order has been passed

on the extent of Section 317 of the Cr.P.C. and that stage has not yet come,

the impugned order dated 16.02.2023 is found to be perverse.

7. Accordingly, the order dated 16.02.2023 passed in M.C.A. No.7486 of

2022, arising from RC 01A/2012-R, pending in the court of the learned Sub-

Divisional Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi is set

aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned court to pass fresh order,

in accordance with law.

8. The petitioner is also put at liberty to file additional affidavit before

the learned court in view of the aforesaid two judgments relied by him and

the same shall be considered by the learned court, in accordance with law.

9. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/