Jharkhand High Court
Rameshwar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 September, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.413 of 2023
------
1. Rameshwar Singh, aged about 70 years, son of Sundar Singh,
Resident of - Village- Pipradih, P.O. - Sarandah, P.S.- Birni,
District- Giridih, Jharkhand
2. Pankaj Kumar Singh @ Pankaj Singh, aged about 37 years, Son
of Rameshwar Singh, Resident of - Village- Pipradih, P.O.-
Sarandah, P.S.- Birni, Sarandah, District- Giridih, Jharkhand
3. Arun Singh aged about 42 years, son of Rameshwar Singh,
Resident of- village- Pipradih, P.O.- Sarandah, P.S.- Birni, ,
District- Giridih, Jharkhand
... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Prasanjeet Mukharjee son of Late Indrajeet mukharjee resident
of - P.O. & P.S. - Sariya, District - Giridih, Jharkhand
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Suraj Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Md. Fahad Allam, Addl.P.P.
------
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 taking cognizance dated
06.01.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in
connection with Sariya P.S. Case No.37 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case
No.310 of 2022 whereby and where under the learned Magistrate has taken
cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471, 323,
34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner No.1 in
furtherance with the common intention with the co-accused persons, has
committed forgery of a Voter I.D. Card in the name of a person namely
Uttam Ranjan Sen and on the basis of the same, got one forged power-of-
attorney registered and on the basis of the same, he claims to be the owner
of the land belonging to the informant- who is an advocate by profession.
On 12.02.2021, the petitioners along with the co-accused persons forcibly
stopped the construction work of the informant, abused him and caused
hurt to him. Police after investigation of the case, found the allegations
against the petitioners to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the
petitioners for having committed the said offences and on the basis of the
same, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the
offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471, 323, 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations
against the petitioners are false. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as
prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be quashed and set aside.
5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand
vehemently opposes the prayer made by the petitioners in this Cr.M.P. and
submits that the only contention of the petitioners for the prayer made in
this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, is that the allegations against the
petitioner are false. It is then submitted that the same is not a ground for
quashing the order of cognizance and the same is at the most a defence
which the petitioner can take at the appropriate stage of the trial. Hence, it
is submitted 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 it is a settled principle of law that the High Court in
exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C cannot hold a mini trial to
ascertain the veracity of the defence of an accused person of the case and the
same can only be done in a full dress trial as has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Another vs.
Akhil Sharda & Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820, the relevant
portion of which reads as under :-
" Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise
of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court
has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not
permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under
Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of
decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in
exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the
stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High
Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case
being considered. (Emphasis supplied)"
7. It is also a settled principle of law that in exercise of the power under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the genuine prosecution cannot be stifled as has been
held in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr. ) & Another vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781.
8. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific
allegation against the petitioners that in furtherance of their common
intention, they have committed the offences of forgery and cheating and also
caused hurt to the informant. The allegations against the petitioners were
found to be true by the police during the investigation of the case and police
has also submitted charge-sheet. As already indicated above, the High Court
cannot conduct a mini trial to ascertain the defence of the accused-person
and the only contention of the petitioners- accused persons of the case is that
the allegations against them are false, which can be ascertained only during
the full dress trial.
9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that
there is no merit in this Cr.M.P.
10. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 23rd of September, 2024
AFR/ Saroj
