Jharkhand High Court
Niranjan Prasad Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 September, 2025
2025:JHHC:26825
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 342 of 2003
With
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 469 of 2003
With
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 477 of 2003
---------
[Against order taking cognizance dated 03.02.2003 passed by
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Godda in G.O.C.R. No. 11 of 2003
arising out of Miscellaneous Case No.5 of 2002]
---------
In Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 342 of 2003
Niranjan Prasad Singh, s/o Sri Bhagwat Prasad Singh, Vill.
Diayra, P.S. Godda, District: Godda ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Hare Krishna Mahto, s/o late Dhananjay Mahto, Vill. Amarpur
Tola, Saharpur, P.S. Godda, District: Godda
... ... Respondents
In Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 469 of 2003
Mohan Mahto, son of Kishun Mahto, resident of village Amarpur,
Tola Saharpura, P.O. Makhni, P.S. Godda (M), District Godda
... ... Appellant
Versus
1
2025:JHHC:26825
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Hare Krishna Mahto, son of late Dhananjay Mahto, resident of
village Amarpur, Tola Saharpur, P.O. Makhni P.S. Godda (M),
District Godda ... ... Respondents
In Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 477 of 2003
Bharat Jee Mishra, son of Late Radhika Prasad Mishra, resident
of Mohalla- Laheri Tola, P.S. Godda (T), District- Godda.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Hare Krishna Mahto, s/o Late Dhananjay Mahto, resident of
village Amarpur, Tola Saharpur, P.O. Makhni, P.S. Godda,
District Godda. ... ... Respondents
---------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, Advocate
[In Cr.A(S.J.) No. 342 of 2003]
Mrs. M.M. Pal, A.C.
[In Cr.A(S.J.) No. 469 of 2003]
Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate
[In Cr.A(S.J.) No. 477 of 2003]
For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
[In Cr.A(S.J.) Nos. 342 of 2003 & 477 of 2003]
Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
[In Cr.A(S.J.) No. 469 of 2003]
For the Informant : Mr. Harendra Kr. Mahato, Advocate
[In Cr.A(S.J.) No. 469 of 2003]
2
2025:JHHC:26825
Mrs. Ahalya Mahato, Advocate
[In Cr.A(S.J.) No. 477 of 2003]
---------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 28.03.2025 Pronounced on 04.09.2025
1. These criminal appeals emanate from the same order, as
such, same are being heard together and disposed of by a
common judgment.
2. These criminal appeals are directed against order taking
cognizance dated 03.02.2003 passed by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate Godda in G.O.C.R. No. 11 of 2003 arising out of
Miscellaneous Case No.5 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the
learned CJM has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 109,
114, 120-B, 205, 468, 471/34 of IPC against appellants in view of
order dated 29.01.2003 passed by the learned 3rd Additional
Sessions Judge, Godda.
3. The background of the present case is necessary before
examining it, which is noted as under:
(i) The victim filed a complaint case being, PCR No. 278 of
1991 against the appellant Mohan Mahto, wherein she has
alleged that in January, 1991 (six months prior to filing of
complaint), when she was about 13-14 years of age, the accused
(Mohan Mahto, one of the appellant herein) committed rape on
her person by finding the victim alone and when it was objected,
the accused extended threat to the victim and had also given
2025:JHHC:26825
assurance that he would marry her and on this pretext, he
sexually exploited her and when this fact was known to the
parents of the victim, then she was reprimanded by them and the
parents of the victim made complaint to the parents of accused,
then parents of the accused had also given assurance of marriage
of the accused with the victim. It is further alleged by the victim
that she got pregnant and despite finalizing the marriage, the
accused did not act upon his promise to solemnize the marriage
with her, which prompted her to file the present complaint. This
complaint was sent for registration of case and investigation by
learned Magistrate vide order dated 13.08.1991 and after due
investigation, charge sheet was submitted and after taking
cognizance of offence, matter was committed to the court of
sessions, where it was numbered as Sessions Case No.65 of
1999/27 of 2002. Charges against accused under Sections
376/493/420 of IPC have been framed on 31st January, 2002 by
Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Godda in Sessions Case No. 65 of
1999.
(ii) Record of Sessions Case No.65 of 1999 transpires that
prosecution got examined as many as seven witnesses and they
are PW-1 Girdhari Sah, PW-2 Muslim Ansari, PW-3, victim, PW-4
Mahendra Mahto, PW-5 Md. Mahbul Ansari, PW-6 Baijnath
Mahto and PW-7 mother of the victim. All the witnesses including
the victim and her mother got hostile during the trial and case
ultimately culminated into acquittal of the accused, vide
judgment dated 16th August, 2002 passed by the court of 3rd
Additional Sessions Judge, Godda.
(iii) The accused celebrated after acquittal in the aforesaid
sessions case and when the father of the victim made inquiry
then he came across the fact that above-said persons (witnesses)
including victim and other witnesses did not depose before the
2025:JHHC:26825
court in Sessions Case No.65 of 1999 and Advocate of the
informant told him that he was not allowed to follow up the said
case, therefore he was not present at the time of recording of
depositions of witnesses.
(iv) After acquittal, one miscellaneous petition being, Misc.
Petition No. 05/2002 has been filed by Hare Krishna Mahto,
father of the victim before 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Godda
stating therein that in Sessions Case No. 65 of 1999 statement of
Victim (P.W.3) recorded on 08.07.2002, Mahendra Mahto (P.W.4)
on 24.07.2002, Mahbul Ansari (P.W.5) and Baijnath Mahto
(P.W.6) on 03.08.2002 and Nediya Devi, wife of applicant (P.W.7)
got recorded on 07.08.2002 but actually the above witnesses
never deposed before the court in the said matter, therefore the
accused with the connivance of learned A.P.P. by hatching a
conspiracy and committing fraud, deprived the victim from
justice.
(v) The aforesaid miscellaneous petition is well supported with
affidavits of Mahendra Mahto, Mahboob Ansari, Baijnath Mahto,
Nediya Devi (wife of applicant herein), Hare Krishna Mahto
(applicant herein). In the above-said affidavit(s), deponents have
stated categorically that they did not depose in the above-said
session's case.
4. After filing of above-said miscellaneous petition along with
affidavit of above-stated person(s), learned Additional Sessions
Judge entered into an inquiry under Section 340 of Cr.P.C and
issued show-cause to learned A.P.P., learned counsel(s) for the
accused, learned counsel for the informant, who have responded
to above-said show-cause notices. After going through the
response of the show-cause notices, it transpires that they denied
their involvement in getting the evidence allegedly recorded by
impersonating witnesses in Sessions Case No. 65 of 1999.
2025:JHHC:26825
5. Thereafter, learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded the
testimony of AW-1 Hare Krishna Mahto, AW-2 Mahendra Mahto,
AW-3 Baijnath Mahto, AW-4 Mahboob Ansari, AW-5 Nediya Devi,
AW-6 victim, AW-7 Muslim Ansari and AW-8 Girdhari Sah.
6(i). AW-1 Hare Krishna Mahto has stated that he received
summon in the present case, but his deposition could not get
recorded and he did not know where the case had been
transferred and after getting certified copy, he came across the
fact that case was transferred to 3rd Additional Sessions Judge,
Godda and his statement was never recorded before the said
court. He has also stated that at the time of filing of
miscellaneous petition, his daughter (victim) had gone to her
Mama's place in Nepal, but she returned from there. He has
conceded to the fact that he had engaged his counsel, Advocate
Niranjan Singh, who is the appellant of Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.
342 of 2003. He also stated in the inquiry that one case was also
pending before SDJM in which Shri Bharat Mishra, Advocate was
representing the accused (Mohan Mahto, one of the appellants).
(ii). AW-2 Mahendra Mahto, AW-3 Baijnath Mahto and AW-4
Mahboob Ansari have stated in their respective testimony that
they did not depose as witnesses in the rape case.
(iii). AW-5, mother of the victim also stated that she had not
received the notice and her testimony had not been recorded in
the aforesaid case.
(iv). AW-6 victim has also stated that she received summon in
the rape case and she along with her father visited the court and
had engaged Shri Niranjan Singh, Advocate as her counsel and
the Vakalatnama also filed on her behalf, but her testimony was
not recorded and one time petition was given on behalf of
accused. The victim has also stated that during pendency of
above-said rape case, the accused assured her of marriage but
2025:JHHC:26825
did not marry her. She has also stated that one maintenance case
was also filed against the accused Mohan Mahto [appellant in Cr.
Appeal (S.J.) No.469 of 2003] and in that case, court has allowed
maintenance to her son and that case was being followed up by
Bharat Jee Mishra, Advocate on behalf of the accused Mohan
Mahto. She has also stated that maintenance case has been
finally decided.
(v). AW-7 Muslim Ansari has stated that his evidence got
recorded in the rape case.
(vi). AW-8 Girdhari Sah stated that he had given evidence in one
case, but he could not specify which case it was.
7. Considering the material available on record after inquiry
under Section 340 of Cr.P.C, learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Godda vide order dated 29.01.2003 came to conclusion that
prima-facie case is made out against the four persons (three
appellants herein and one A.P.P), therefore in larger interest of
administration of justice complaint be filed. Thereafter on
01.02.2003 a complaint being Complaint (G.O.C.R) No.11 of 2003
has been filed before the court of learned C.J.M, Godda, who vide
order dated 03.02.2003 took cognizance of offence under Sections
109, 114, 120-B, 205, 468, 471/34 of IPC and summoned
accused persons namely (i) Mohan Mahto (appellant in Cr. Appeal
(S.J) No. 469 of 2003), (ii) Bharat Jee Mishra (appellant in Cr.
Appeal (S.J) No. 477 of 2003), (iii) Ambika Prasad Yadav (Not
preferred an appeal), (iv) Niranjan Prasad Singh (appellant in Cr.
Appeal (S.J) No. 342 of 2003). Having aggrieved by the above-said
order three accused persons out of four, preferred the present
appeals.
8. At the outset, learned counsels for the appellants have
jointly submitted that no appeal preferred against the order of
acquittal in the Sessions Case No. 65 of 1999 and father of the
2025:JHHC:26825
victim filed the complaint under the aegis of Section 340 Cr.P.C
with ill motive to annoy these appellants without any basis,
rather being dissatisfied with the order of acquittal, it would be
more appropriate for the victim and the Informant to file an
appeal. It has also been urged before this court that alleged
incident is of year 2002 and no purpose would be served by
asking the appellants to face agony of trial for further two
decades.
9. Learned counsel for appellant in Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.
342 of 2003 has submitted that a foul play plotted against this
appellant and on the basis of guess work or imagination it is
alleged against the appellant that he connived with the other side
without any iota of evidence against this appellant. It is further
submitted that none of the witnesses were produced nor testified
by this appellant and he has no idea about the progress of the
said case and, as such, this appellant has no role in the said
commission of alleged offence. On the above premise, it is prayed
that order dated 03.02.2003 of taking cognizance may kindly be
quashed and set-aside by this Court.
10. Learned counsel for appellant in Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.
469 of 2003 has submitted that the recommendation in the
complaint made by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge,
Godda which formed the basis of Cognizance order dated
03.02.2003 has been made without appreciating the facts that
the allegation in the complaint is vague and false. He has further
submitted that no material has been uttered from the mouth of
any of the inquiry witnesses which could disclose the fact that
who were the persons who had impersonated on their behalf. He
drew attention of this court towards the inquiry in Misc. Case
No.05/2002 wherein eight witnesses have been examined out of
which four witnesses belong to same family and no permission
2025:JHHC:26825
accorded to this appellant to examine those witnesses and on this
score prayer for setting aside the above cognizance order is made.
It has also been pointed out that there is no opinion of
handwriting expert brought on record qua tallying or non-tallying
of signature appearing in the deposition of witnesses and
signature of witnesses who examined during inquiry under
Section 340 of Cr.P.C. Further submission has been made that
name of persons has not been disclosed by father of the victim
who impersonated as witnesses.
11. Learned counsel for appellant in Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.
477 of 2003 has submitted that this case has been piled upon
false and fabricated evidences due to the grudge and malice of the
victim and the informant. He further submitted that cross-
examination of P.Ws with the assistance of Junior Advocate never
constitutes abatement or conspiracy or any other offence as
alleged in the complaint petition against this appellant and
learned 3rd Additional Sessions judge erred in recommending the
learned C.J.M, Godda to proceed on the basis of inquiry and reply
to Show cause, where no iota of evidences has been come up
against this appellant and on the above premise this appellant
pleaded innocence and prayed for setting aside the above
Cognizance order.
12. Per contra, learned A.P.Ps appearing for the sate submitted
that cognizance order dated 03.02.2003 which is impugned
herein has rightly been passed by the learned C.J.M, Godda upon
the recommendation made by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge
who after due inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C and on the basis
of reply to the show cause issued, requested the learned C.J.M,
Godda to proceed with the matter. He further submitted that
these appeals are pending for more than 20 years due to fault of
2025:JHHC:26825
these appellants and for the ends of justice, it is required to be
adjudicated expeditiously.
13. After hearing both the sides and perusing the material
available on record, it transpires that all the three appeals have
been filed under section 341 Cr.P.C against the cognizance and
summoning order dated 03.02.2003 passed by learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate Godda in G.O.C.R. No. 11 of 2003, which
arises from the complaint made under section 340 Cr.P.C. Being
dissatisfied with above-said order, these appeals have been
preferred before this Court under Section 341 Cr.P.C and upon
the question of maintainability of these Criminal appeals being
filled under section 341 Cr.P.C, the Division bench of this Court
vide its order dated 27.03.2003 held that these appeals being
maintainable and to be decided under Criminal Appeal. Therefore,
these criminal appeals are being decided by this Court where the
cognizance and summoning order dated 03.02.2003 has been
challenged/assailed.
14. As stated in preceding paragraphs, it is clear that the
victim, her father, mother and other witnesses (except A.W-7 and
A.W-8) have categorically stated in their respective testimony
during inquiry and also filed an affidavit stating therein that they
had not deposed in Sessions Case No. 65 of 1999 at any point of
time, however, the record of the said sessions case reveals that
the witnesses were examined in the above-said sessions case and
as those witnesses resiled from their earlier statement and
became hostile, this resulted into acquittal of the accused
namely, Mohan Mahto [appellant in Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.
469 of 2003], and he is the ultimate beneficiary of the outcome of
Sessions Case No. 65 of 1999.
15. As far as appellant Bharat Jee Mishra [appellant in
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 477 of 2003] is concerned, he is said to
2025:JHHC:26825
be an Advocate who cross-examined the witnesses with the
assistance of Junior Advocate whose Vakalatnama was on record
in above-said Sessions Case No. 65 of 1999. It is true that
informant in Misc. Petition Case No.05 of 2002 had not
categorically alleged against this appellant, however, the affidavits
which are annexed with the above-said petition speaks about the
connivance of this appellant with other co-accused persons which
facilitated in recording of evidence of witnesses by impersonation.
It is also true that this appellant being an Advocate has not put
his signature on the Vakalatnama which is available on record in
Sessions Case No. 65 of 1999, however, the Vakalatnama filed by
the Advocate namely, Shiv Shankar Jaiswal, has stated in his
reply to show-cause that he is junior of the appellant Bharat Jee
Mishra and on his instruction, he signed the Vakalatnama.
The Advocate namely, Sumit Kumar has stated categorically
that on the instruction of appellant Bharat Jee Mishra he has put
his signature on the transfer petition which was filed in said
Sessions Case No. 65 of 1999 for transferring the said case from
the court of Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Godda to some other
court as the said court was vacant on the transfer of presiding
officer.
Reply to show-cause of Mr. Diptosh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
reveals that he was junior of Bharat Jee Mishra and had signed
Vakalatnama on behalf of accused Mohan Mahto for filing
transfer petition for transfer of Sessions Case No. 65 of 1999 from
the court of Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Godda.
So, response of show-cause notices of above-said three
advocates clearly suggest that appellant Bharat Jee Mishra was
the counsel for accused Mohan Mahto in Sessions Case No. 65 of
1999 and transfer petition (Misc. Petition No.21 of 2002). This
fact further found corroboration from the mouth of the victim,
2025:JHHC:26825
who has been examined as A.W-6 during course of inquiry before
Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Godda and she had categorically
stated that Mr. Bharat Jee Mishra, Advocate was also handling
the case of maintenance which was filed by her in which
concerned court has awarded maintenance to her son and it has
finally been decided.
16. As far as appellant Niranjan Prasad Singh, Advocate in
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 342 of 2003 is concerned, it appears
that during inquiry by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III,
Godda, when show-cause notice was issued to Additional Public
Prosecutor Shri Ambika Prasad Yadav then he filed his response
dated 17.09.2002 in which he has categorically stated that the
witnesses who have been examined in Sessions Case No. 65 of
1999 were identified by the appellant Shri Niranjan Prasad Singh.
17. As far as plea of learned counsel regarding not bringing on
record opinion of handwriting expert qua the signature is
concerned, this Court is of considered view that at the time of
taking cognizance and summoning the accused persons, court
should confine to examine the material what is available on
record only and not what could be brought by
informant/complainant. Second plea regarding opinion disclosure
of names of impersonator is concerned, this Court finds no merit
in the argument on account of fact that all these things were done
behind the witnesses back i.e. without their knowledge. Needless
to say that at the time of recording of evidence during inquiry,
there is no locus of prospective accused person(s) to cross-
examine the witnesses. Also long delay of the matter, itself, is not
the ground to drop the proceeding which is at the very nascent
stage itself.
18. It is required to refer herein the case of Kishorbhai
Gandubhai Pethani v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2014) 13
2025:JHHC:26825
SCC 539 rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court where it has been
held that Perjury amounts to making false statements and it is
always of concern for the judicial system and it should be dealt
with seriousness. Relevant Paragraph of the judgments reads
herein -
9. Perjury is an obstruction of justice. Deliberately making false statements which are
material to the case, and that too under oath, amounts to crime of perjury. Thus, perjury has
always to be seen as a cause of concern for the judicial system. It strikes at the root of the
system itself and disturbs the accuracy of the findings recorded by the court. Therefore, any
person found guilty of causing perjury, has to be dealt with seriously as it is necessary for
the working of the court as well as for the benefit of the public at large.
19. Also, in the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Mahila Vinod Kumari v. State of M.P., reported
in (2008) 8 SCC 34 wherein it has been observed and discussed
by the Apex Curt about the evil of Perjury which should be dealt
effectively. Relevant Paragraph of the judgment reads as under -
12. The evil of perjury has assumed alarming propositions
(sic proportions) in cases depending on oral evidence and in order to deal
with the menace effectively it is desirable for the courts to use the provision
more effectively and frequently than it is presently done.
20. Records of the Trial Court reveals that learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Godda took cognizance under Sections 109,
114, 120-B, 205, 468, 471/34 of IPC dated 03.02.2003 and
thereafter summons were issued upon these appellants.
21. It is trite law that cognizance is of an offence and not of the
offender and it does not involve any formal action and as soon as
the Magistrate applies his judicial mind to the suspected
commission of offence if there exist sufficient ground to proceed.
Cognizance, therefore, takes place at a point when a Magistrate
first takes judicial notice of an offence. Before the Magistrate can
be said to have taken cognizance of an offence, he must have not
2025:JHHC:26825
only applied his mind to the contents of the complaint presented
before him, but must have done so for the purpose of proceeding
and the provisions following that section.
22. This Court is also conscious of the judgment rendered in
the case of Nupur Talwar v. CBI reported in (2012) 2 SCC 188
whereby it has been held that at the stage of cognizance the court
has to look prima facie and if the same is based upon without any
basis or no material, the same should be interfered otherwise not.
Relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under -
17. The taking of cognizance means the point in time when a court or a
Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiating
proceedings in respect of such offence which appears to have been
committed. At the stage of taking of cognizance of offence, the court has only
to see whether prima facie there are reasons for issuing the process and
whether the ingredients of the offence are there on record.
19. The correctness of the order whereby cognizance of the offence has
been taken by the Magistrate, unless it is perverse or based on no material,
should be sparingly interfered with. In the instant case, anyone reading the
order of the Magistrate taking cognizance, will come to the conclusion that
there has been due application of mind by the Magistrate and it is a well-
reasoned order. The order of the High Court passed on a criminal revision
under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code (not under Section 482) at the
instance of Dr. Mrs Nupur Talwar would also show that there has been a
proper application of mind and a detailed speaking order has been passed.
23. It is apposite to refer herein the judgment rendered in the
case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate
reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749 wherein it was held that for
Summoning of an accused in a criminal case, it is required to
examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the
evidences which seems sufficient and would succeed to brought
charges against the accused persons. Relevant paragraph of the
judgment reads hereunder -
28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot
be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two
2025:JHHC:26825
witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into
motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied
his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature
of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support
thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home
to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of
preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully
scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the
complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations
or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the
accused.
24. From the aforesaid factual discussions and legal
propositions, it is clear that there is sufficient material to proceed
against these appellants and at the threshold it cannot be said
that appellants are having no hand in the allegation levelled in
the complaint filed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV,
Godda. It is required to be noted that witnesses in their respective
affidavits and testimonies before the court have categorically
stated that they have not deposed as a witness in Sessions Case
No. 65 of 1999 and even they have not received the summon. It is
further required to be noted that if two versions are available
before the court of law prior to trial, then which version is correct,
the court can only come to conclusion by entering into trial where
both the sides would have an opportunity to make assertions and
rebut the same in accordance with law.
25. The act done by these appellants, of course falls within the
arena of perjury, which is prima facie visible from the discussion
made in the preceding paragraph that upon connivance of these
appellants, impersonated persons deposed in place of the
witnesses and got them examined in the sessions trial and further
deliberately made false submission before the said Court upon
such deposition. It transpires from complaint dated 01.02.2003
and order dated 03.02.2003 that these appellants and apart from
2025:JHHC:26825
one other accused namely Ambika Prasad Yadav, the then A.P.P
have been summoned under Sections 109, 114, 120-B, 205, 468,
471/24 of IPC, but this Court is of considered view that it is
alleged that the appellants and other co-accused by hatching a
conspiracy got examined the witnesses in Sessions Case No. 65 of
1999 by impersonating persons as witnesses which culminated
into acquittal of appellant/accused Mohan Mahto. Therefore,
prima facie, offence only under Sections 193, 205, 120-B, 34 of
IPC is made out, at this stage.
26. Since, the matter is pending for more than 22 years and
this Court vide its order dated 30.01.2004 has stayed the
proceeding of trial court, therefore, it is expected from the Trial
Court to expedite the present case and dispose of it at the
earliest, preferably within one year from the receipt of this
judgment, and both the sides are also expected to cooperate with
the trial court for disposal of the case.
27. In the result, Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 342 of 2003, Cr. Appeal
(S.J) No. 469 of 2003 and Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 477 of 2003 are
hereby dismissed.
28. Let LCR be consigned to the court concerned.
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Dated, the 04/09/2025
R.K./-A.F.R.
