Jharkhand High Court
Sidhi Nath Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 September, 2023
Cr. M.P. No.1967 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.1967 of 2023
------
Sidhi Nath Pandey, aged about 81 years, son of Late Samol Pandey,
resident of Village + PO + PS : Pandu, District- Palamau
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Anand Kumar Pandey,
3. Krishna Kumar Pandey, both sons of son of Late Udaibhan
Pandey, No.2 & 3 are residents of Village + PO + PS : Pandu,
District- Palamau ...
Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate
Mr. Anand Kr. Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, Addl. P.P.
For the O.P. Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
with a prayer to quash the order dated 05.04.2023 (wrongly mentioned as
05.0.2023 at first page of order-sheet) passed by Judicial Magisrate-1st Class,
Palamau in Complaint Case No.220 of 2008 whereby the petition dated
27.02.2023 filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for making some
of the documents as Exhibits, has been rejected with cost of Rs.2,000/-.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is the complainant of
Complaint Case No.220 of 2008. Vide order dated 05.04.2023, the learned trial
court allowed the prayer of the accused persons of the case to mark as Ext.
Cr. M.P. No.1967 of 2023
seven number of documents. In rebuttal of those documents, the petitioner
prayed that the following documents be exhibited:-
(1) the certified copy of the return in the name of Pandey Amrit Ram filed in
Compensation Case No.2-60-61 dated 12.08.1996 of Mouza- Kuliya;
(2) attested copy of S.M. Case No.120/69-70 of Mouza- Kuliya in the name of
Udaybhan Pandey and Shyam Kishore Pandey;
(3) certified copy of attested copy of forged M Form; and
(4) the certified copy of the deposition of the witness of the accused person
namely Md. Iliyas in Title Suit No.45 of 1997.
Out of which the documents at serial Nos.1 to 2 were already in record but
could not be marked exhibit because of oversight and the document at serial
No.3 was sought to be admitted in evidence and exhibited. The learned Judicial
Magistrate observed that the complainant is merely lingering trial of the case
and has not mentioned any reason as to what is the significance and need to get
these documents exhibited and why he has filed the documents at belated stage
not before 22.07.2022 i.e., the date of closing of after charge evidence of the
complaint and the complainant has provided no justification as to why he has
not filed these documents during the evidence stage when he came in
possession of the evidence and rejected the petition with cost of Rs.2,000/-.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the
complainant is that the joint property which is the ancestral land, has been
inherited by the complainant and he is in peaceful possession thereof. Rent was
determined in favour of the petitioner and his brother. The opposite party
Nos.2 and 3 who are the accused persons of the said case got a proceeding
initiated under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of the portions of the land
Cr. M.P. No.1967 of 2023
vide Misc. Case No.748 of 1995. In their show-cause, they based their claim on a
proceeding vide S.M. Case No.120 of 1969-70 and submitted a forged
document. The father of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and the accused No.1
of the said complaint case sold the land on the basis of forged document to
several persons by referring to an order passed in S.M. Case No.120 of 1969-70.
The petitioner filed Misc. Case No.44 of 1995 in the court of Additional
Collector against the accused No.1 and father of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3
and other purchasers. After inquiry, a report was submitted on 23.09.1996
wherein it was observed that the copy of order of S.M. Case No.120 of 1969-70
was forged and on the basis of order passed by the Additional Collector, the
Circle Officer, Bishrampur stayed the Jamabandi created in favour of accused
persons. The petitioner filed Title Suit No.45 of 1997 which was decreed in
favour of the petitioner and the said judgment and decree in title suit has been
affirmed in Second Appeal No.157 of 2020. It is next submitted that the learned
trial court has adopted two different yardsticks for admitting documents in
evidence in respect of the petition filed by the petitioner and the accused
persons. It is next submitted that the learned Magistrate misdirected itself in
not going through the contents of the petition dated 27.02.2023 which is a
detailed one and the petitioner has quoted the circumstances under which he
was compelled to make such prayer to bring certain documents being of
impeachable character and old documents on record. It is next submitted that
after closure of the evidence though the trial court allowed the defence to bring
in evidence the documents in exercise of the power under Section 294 of the
Cr.P.C. but rejected outrightly the prayer of the complainant-petitioner to mark
the said documents as exhibit; without considering the relevance and
Cr. M.P. No.1967 of 2023
requirement of the documents for just decision of the case. It is further
submitted that after the order dated 05.01.2023 when the petitioner tried to
obtain the certified copy of the documents through an application dated
09.02.2023, the same were not provided by the Copying Department stating
that no exhibit document of accused is available on record but upon inspection
of the record of Complaint Case No.220 of 2008, it came to the knowledge of the
petitioner that forged documents were admitted in evidence vide order dated
05.01.2023 which requires rebuttal. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated
05.04.2023 (wrongly mentioned as 05.0.2023 at first page of order-sheet) passed
by Judicial Magisrate-1st Class, Palamau in Complaint Case No.220 of 2008
whereby the petition dated 27.02.2023 filed by the petitioner under Section 311
of Cr.P.C. for making some of the documents as Exhibits, has been rejected with
cost of Rs.2,000/-, be quashed and set aside.
5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the
opposite party No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer for quashing and setting
aside the order dated 05.04.2023 (wrongly mentioned as 05.0.2023 at first page
of order-sheet) passed by Judicial Magisrate-1st Class, Palamau in Complaint
Case No.220 of 2008 whereby the petition dated 27.02.2023 filed by the
petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for making the said documents as
Exhibits, has been rejected with cost of Rs.2,000/- and submit that this Cr.M.P.,
being without any merit, be dismissed.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully
going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention
here that the object underlying Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is
that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in
Cr. M.P. No.1967 of 2023
bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving any ambiguity in the
statement of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinatory factor
is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. Section 311 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure; is not limited only to the benefit of the accused as has
been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case Vijay Kumar vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2011) 8 SCC 136.
7. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st
Class, Palamau has not taken the pains to refer the grounds set out in the
petition dated 27.02.2023 nor it has even considered how the documents sought
to be admitted in evidence which has not even been referred to in the order
dated 05.04.2023, is not necessary for the just decision of the case. Under such
circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the order dated
05.04.2023 (wrongly mentioned as 05.0.2023 at first page of order-sheet) passed
by Judicial Magisrate-1st Class, Palamau in Complaint Case No.220 of 2008
whereby the petition dated 27.02.2023 filed by the petitioner under Section 311
of Cr.P.C. for making the said documents as Exhibits, has been rejected with
cost of Rs.2,000/-, is not sustainable in law.
8. Accordingly, the order dated 05.04.2023 (wrongly mentioned as 05.0.2023
at first page of order-sheet) passed by Judicial Magisrate-1st Class, Palamau in
Complaint Case No.220 of 2008 whereby the petition dated 27.02.2023 filed by
the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for making some of the documents
as Exhibits, has been rejected with cost of Rs.2,000/-, is quashed and set aside.
9. The Judicial Magisrate-1st Class, Palamau is directed to pass a fresh
order; in respect of the petition dated 27.02.2023; by considering whether the
documents sought to exhibited are admissible in evidence and relevant to the
Cr. M.P. No.1967 of 2023
case and whether they are required for the just decision of the case; and if the
answers is in affirmative; then to get the said documents exhibited in
accordance with law.
10. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready
and willing to pay the cost as required for sending the order of this Court by
FAX to the court concerned.
12. In case, required cost is deposited by the petitioner, Registry is directed
to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through FAX, forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 04th of September, 2023
AFR/ Animesh
