Jharkhand High Court
Santosh Mishra @ Santosh Kumar ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 September, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No. 612 of 2023
1.Santosh Mishra @ Santosh Kumar Mishra
2.Nirmala Mishra
3. Varsha Devi
...... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioners : Mr. Afaque Ahmed, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binit Chandra, A.C. to A.A.G-III
04/Dated: 15/09/2023
Heard Mr. Afaque Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Mr. Binit Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent-State.
2. This petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated
11.07.2023 passed in Criminal Revision Case No. 33 of 2023 by the learned
Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ramgarh. Further prayer has been made for
quashing the order 08.05.2023 whereby petition filed under section 311 of
Cr.P.C. has been rejected. Prayer has also been made for re-open enquiry and
provide opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence. Further prayer has
been made for quashing the order dated 07.06.2023 passed in G.R. Case No.
1267 of 2016 arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 379 of 2016 passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh whereby petition filed under section
311 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
3. Mr. Afaque Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the petitioners preferred a petition under section 311 of Cr.P.C. before the
learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ramgarh to allow two material witnesses
P.W.7 and P.W.8 which was dismissed by order dated 12.04.2023. He further
submits that subsequent petition filed under section 311 of Cr.P.C. was further
rejected vide order dated 07.06.2023 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ramgarh and against the order dated 07.06.2023 the petitioners preferred
Criminal Revision No. 33 of 2023 which was rejected. Learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that under section 311 Cr.P.C. power can be exercised at
any stage. He submits that trial has not concluded as yet. He submits that in
several judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the issue. He
submits that appropriate order may kindly be passed. He submits that the case
of the petitioners is covered in the light of recent judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1021 of 2022.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Binit Chandra, learned counsel for the
respondent-State submits that unnecessarily the petitioners are delaying the
matter so that the trial may not be concluded. He submits that the petition
filed by the petitioners has been rejected on 12.04.2023 by the learned Judicial
Magistrate and subsequent petition filed by the petitioners under section 311
of Cr.P.C. has been rejected by order dated 07.06.2023. He submits that against
the order dated 12.04.2023 the Criminal Revision No. 19/2023 was filed by the
petitioners and based on that the petition was filed before the learned court
for time which was rejected vide order dated 08.05.2023. He submits that
learned Revisional Court has rightly passed the order.
5. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including impugned
order. It appears that the first petition filed under section 311 Cr.P.C. was
rejected by the learned court on 12.04.2023 and against that order petitioners
filed Criminal Revision No. 19 of 2023 on the ground of pendency of that
criminal revision the prayer was made for adjournment of case which was
rejected by order dated 08.05.2023. After withdrawal of earlier petition filed
under section 311 of Cr.P.C. further petition was filed which was decided by
the learned Judicial Magistrate by order dated 07.06.2023 whereby the prayer
has been rejected. Thereafter the petitioners preferred Criminal Revision No. 33
of 2023 considering all the above facts including the orders the learned
Sessions Judge found that argument on behalf of the prosecution was
concluded and argument on behalf of the defence was also heard in part on
06.04.2023. On 12.04.2023 a petition under section 311 of Cr.P.C. was filed
which was dismissed with cost of Rs. 500/- and against that order, Criminal
Revision No. 19 of 2023 was filed before the learned Sessions Judge which was
withdrawn on 09.05.2023. By order dated 08.05.2023 the learned Judicial
Magistrate passed an order and thereafter new petition was filed which was
rejected vide order dated 07.06.2023.
6. The learned Revisional Court has recorded that Dr. Nissat Ahmad
who was a Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Ramgarh was already examined
on 19.11.2016 and considering that aspect of the matter and the conduct of
the petitioners learned Revisional Court has rejected the petition.
7. The Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order
passed by the learned Revisional Court. There is no doubt that the petition filed
under section 311 of Cr.P.C. can be entertained at any stage however the
conduct of the petitioners and bona fide is also one of parameter to allow such
petition and to linger the trial such petition cannot be allowed.
8. In view of above background, it transpires that the petition filed
by the petitioners before the learned court was not bonafide and only to intend
delay. No relief can be extended to the petitioners. Accordingly, this petition is
dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/
