Jharkhand High Court
Manoj Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 March, 2023
1 Cr.M.P. No. 1344 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1344 of 2012
1. Manoj Singh
2. Aditya Ojha
3. Jai Bhagatiya ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Raj Kumar, Forest Ranger Officer, Bokaro ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the State : Mr. S.K. Srivastava, A.P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate
-----
07/15.03.2023 Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S.K.
Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned
counsel for opposite party no.2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.01.2012
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Revision No.124
of 2011 affirming the order dated 05.09.2011 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in G.R. No.1714 of 2010, whereby, he has been
pleased to reject the prayer of the petitioner for discharge made under
Section 239 Cr.P.C., which is pending in the court of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro.
3. On the basis of written report of the Forest Ranger Officer, Chas
Forest Range, Chas P.S. Case No.270 of 2010 dated 27.12.2010 was
registered under Sections 379, 353/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the
petitioners and 25-30 unknown persons, wherein, it was alleged that the
informant received information that on 26.12.2010 at about 10:00 p.m., one
JCB Machine was seized from Plot No.492 which is a reserved forest area in
village Wishwanathdih. It was also alleged that the petitioners along with
others reached to the forest area and attempted to encroach the portion of
forest by using the said JCB machine and they also slapped the forest
guards.
4. Mr. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Plot
No.492 falls under Khata No.39 which has been recorded in the survey
record. He further submits that Plot No.492 was amended as Plot No.472.
He also submits that in this background, an application under Section 239
Cr.P.C. was filed, however the learned trial court has dismissed the
application vide order dated 05.09.2011 and against the said order, the
petitioners moved before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision
No.124 of 2011, which was also dismissed. He submits that the revisional
order is also bad in law, which has been passed in a mechanical manner.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and opposite party
no.2 submit that the learned Sessions Judge has taken into consideration
the materials which has come in the case diary and considering all the
aspects, both the learned courts have passed the orders. There is no
illegality in the impugned orders.
6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, the Court has gone through the orders of the learned trial court as
well as the revisional court. The learned revisional court has taken note of
the fact that in para 54, 55 and 72 of the case diary, there is material
showing involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offence and there is
direct allegation against them of having committed offences punishable
under Section 379, 353/34 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, the
revision application was dismissed. The learned revisional court has also
taken note of the fact that it is settled principle of law that when FIR makes
out a case of commission of an offence, there cannot be an order of
discharge and that has been observed on the basis of the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajbir v. State; (AIR 2006 SC 1963).
It is well settled that when a prima facie case is made out, discharge
petition is not fit to be allowed. The learned trial court as well as the
revisional court have taken note of that and, thereafter, passed the orders.
Moreover, there is no illegality in the impugned orders and in the garb of
Section 482 Cr.P.C., second revision is not maintainable. Hence, no relief can
be extended to the petitioners.
7. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
8. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, stands vacated.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
