Jharkhand High Court
Nirmalendra Chandra Pandey @ Nirmendu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 August, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
[2025:JHHC:21857]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 1269 of 2019
Nirmalendra Chandra Pandey @ Nirmendu
Chandra Pandey, aged about 48 years, son of
Kamalendra Chandra Pandey, resident of The
Aloya, Chhoti Rajbari, Pakur, P.O., P.S. and
District:-Pakur (Jharkhand).
..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Ashmendra Chandra Pandey, S/o Late
Bhupendra Chandra Pandey, r/o Choti Raj Badi,
P.O.+ P.S.-Pakur Nagar, District:-Pakur.
..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate.
------
12/ 05.08.2025 Heard Mr. Rishav Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State
and Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the O.P.
No. 2.
2. This revision petition has been preferred against the order
dated 06.08.2019, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Pakur, in connection with Pakur (T) P.S. Case No. 186 of 2017
corresponding to G.R. No. 848 of 2017, whereby, the discharge petition
filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. by the petitioner has been
rejected by the learned court.
3. Mr. Rishav Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the case has been registered for the offence
under Sections 341, 384, 386 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 27 of the Arms Act, however, the learned court has been
[2025:JHHC:21857]
pleased to take cognizance under Sections 341, 504 and 506(2) of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 30 of the Arms Act. He submits that
there is no evidence of pointing out of the gun or make fire therefrom
by the accused petitioner upon the son of the informant namely
Abhishek Chandra Pandey or any one as alleged by the informant in the
FIR, rather the I.O. has found in the entire CCTV footage that the barrel
of gun was up side. He further submits that in absence of any reason of
contravention of using of the armed license, cognizance has been taken
under Section 30 of the Arms Act, in view of that the cognizance order
itself is bad in law, in light of that the discharge petition has been filed
by the petitioner, which has been rejected by the learned court, which is
not in accordance with law. He submits that the firing aspect has not
been supported in view of the statement made in para-58 of the case
diary.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed
reliance in the case of Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel Versus State
of Gujarat & Anr., reported in (2019) 16 SCC 547.
5. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that for framing
of charge, what are the documents in the investigation and the evidence
available to the court is required to be considered by the learned court,
however, the learned court without appreciating all these aspects of the
matter, has rejected the discharge petition, in view of that the impugned
order may kindly be set aside and the petitioner may kindly be
discharged.
6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State
submits that the learned court has considered the parameters of
discharge and thereafter passed the order, as such, there is no illegality
in the impugned order.
[2025:JHHC:21857]
7. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the
informant-O.P. No. 2 submits that in para-10 onwards, the witnesses
have supported the case that the petitioner herein has fired upon the son
of the informant, however, by the firearm, son was not caused any hurt.
He submits that the learned court has considered the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Versus Mohanlal
Soni, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 338 and thereafter has passed the order.
He further submits that the petitioner has also committed the same
crime earlier, which has come in para-39 of the case diary. On these
grounds, he submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order, as
such, the petition of the petitioner is fit to be dismissed.
8. In the FIR, allegations are made by the informant namely
Asimendra Chandra Pandey stating therein that on 27.12.2017 in the
afternoon, when the informant asked the accused to remove his car
which he had parked in front of his gate as it was blocking the passage,
the petitioner went berserk. It has been alleged that the accused started
hurling abuses to him and threatened to kill him. The petitioner did not
stop at that point and even brought a gun from his house and allegedly
fired at the son of the informant namely Avishek Chandra Pandey. The
CCTV camera footage was examined by the I.O., wherein para-58, the
clear discussions have been made that on a car, the person was sitting
along with arms and what has been recorded in the CCTV footage, that
has also discussed in para-58 of the case diary.
9. In course of the arguments, it has not been denied by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the witnesses examined
have not supported the case of the prosecution and para-10 onwards of
the case diary, the witnesses, who were examined, have supported the
case of the prosecution. In para-13, it has also come that earlier also the
[2025:JHHC:21857]
petitioner has fired upon one of the person, however, it has been replied
by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner
has already acquitted in that case.
10. In view of the above and on the above backgrounds, only
consideration in the present revision petition is as to whether the case of
discharge is made out or not.
11. In the case relied by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in the case of Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel (Supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-23 has held that material must be such
as can be translated into evidence at the stage of trial and in view of that
observation and in light of materials found in the investigation,
particularly in para-58 of the case diary, wherein the description of the
CCTV footage has been discussed, it cannot be said that it will not be
translated into the evidence and further a strong suspicion is there.
12. Framing of charge is a kind of tentative view that the trial
court forms in terms of Sections 228 and 239 of the Cr.P.C. which is
subject to final culmination of the proceedings. The legislature in its
wisdom has used the expression 'there is ground for presuming that the
accused has committed an offence'. This has an inbuilt element of
presumption once the ingredients of an offence with reference to the
allegations made are satisfied, the Court would not doubt the case of the
prosecution unduly and extend its jurisdiction to quash the charge in
haste. The meaning of the word "presume" means "to believe or accept
upon probable evidence"; "to take as proved until evidence to the
contrary is forthcoming". In other words, the truth of the matter has to
come out when the prosecution evidence is led, the witnesses are cross-
examined by the defence, the incriminating material and evidence is put
to the accused in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. and then the accused is
[2025:JHHC:21857]
provided an opportunity to lead defence, if any. It is only upon
completion of such steps that the trial concludes with the court forming
its final opinion and delivering its judgment.
13. Section 397 CrPC vests the court with the power to call for
and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of
satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or
order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent
defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded
error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders,
which upon the face of them bear a token of careful consideration and
appear to be in accordance with law. Revisional jurisdiction can be
invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous,
there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded
is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial
discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not
exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to
be determined on its own merits.
14. Coming to the facts of the present case what has been
discussed hereinabove, the materials come in para-10 onwards of the
case diary and particularly in para-58 of the case diary, on which, heavy
reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, the materials are there and strong suspicion are also there.
The court finds that there is no patent error or any perversity or
arbitrariness committed by the learned court in passing the impugned
order on a petition filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C.
15. In view of the aforesaid facts, discussions, reasons and
analysis, the court finds there is not illegality in the impugned order, as
such, this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands dismissed.
[2025:JHHC:21857]
16. Interim order, granted earlier, stands vacated.
17. It is made clear that the learned court will proceed further in
accordance with law by way of framing the charge and this order will
not prejudice the case of either of the parties, as it has only been
decided on the parameters of discharge.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
[A.F.R.]
