Jharkhand High Court
Ashutosh Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 March, 2025
Author: Ambuj Nath
Bench: Ambuj Nath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 3923 of 2022
Ashutosh Kumar, aged about 30 years, son of Yamuna Pd. Singh,
resident of village Reria, P.O and P.S. Chenari, District Rohtas (Bihar)
--- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rishideo Prasad Singh, S/o Late Ramanand Singh, R/o Mahavir,
Baljivi Colony, Road No. 05, 70 Feet Road, Dasratha (West),
Anisabad, P.S. Beur, District Patna (Bihar) --- Opp. Parties
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath
---
For the Petitioner: Mr. Krishna Murari & Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocates
For the O.P-State: Ms. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2: Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate
---
07 / 10.03.2025 This application has been filed against the order dated 12.09.022
passed by Sri Ghulam Haidar, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I,
Koderma in Misc. Crl. Application No. 753 of 2022, whereby and
wherein, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma dismissed
the application for discharge filed by the petitioner under section 227 of
the Cr. P.C in connection with S.T. case No. 171 of 2021 arising out of
Chandwara P.S. Case No. 62 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. No. 920 of
2021, initially registered under section 302/120(B) of the Indian Penal
Code and section 27 of Arms Act.
2. It appears that after the investigation, police have submitted
charge sheet in this case under sections 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code
and section 27 of Arms Act.
3. Charge was framed against the petitioner under sections 304/34 of
the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of Arms Act. At the time of
framing of charge, Informant / opposite party no. 2 has filed an
application before the learned court below that charge be framed under
section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. On the same day, petitioner has
filed an application under section 227 of the Cr. P.C for his discharge
under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the
petitioner under section 227 of the Cr. P.C and allowed the application
filed by the opposite party no. 2 for framing of charge under section 302
of the Indian Penal Code.
5. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
charge was framed mainly under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. It
was further submitted that altogether 14 witnesses have been examined.
Reliance has been placed upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court rendered in the case of P. Kartikalakshmi versus Sri
Ganesh and Another reported in [(2017) 3 SCC 347], in which the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that power under section 216 of the Cr.
P.C. vested in the court is exclusive to the court and there is no right in
any party neither de facto complainant nor accused nor prosecution to
seek such addition or alteration by filing any application as a matter of
right.
6. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that charge has been framed
under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Additional Sessions
Judge though has allowed the application filed by the opposite party no.
2 for framing of charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but
the same has not been complied in view of the order dated 21.12.2022
passed by this court, whereby charge was not ordered to be framed under
section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. Considering the entire gamut of the aforesaid case, the order dated
12.09.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Koderma in
Misc. Crl. Application No. 753 of 2022 is quashed. However, it will be
open to the court to amend or alter the charge on the basis of the
material evidence available on the record at any stage before
pronouncement of the judgment as it deems fit. This application is
allowed with the aforesaid observation. Pending I.A., if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Ambuj Nath, J)
Ranjeet/
Uploaded
