[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Sujit Kumar Thakur vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 April, 2026
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2026:JHHC:10489
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr. Revision No. 660 of 2019
----
Sujit Kumar Thakur, aged about 50 years, son of late Ras Bihari
Thakur, resident of Sachdeva Colony, Jorapokhar, PO Dhanbad
PS Dhansar, District Dhanbad ...... .... .... Petitioner(s)
-- Versus --
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Lakhan Prasad Verma, son of late Govind Ram Verma,
resident of Boka Pahadi, behind Jharia Water Board, PO and PS
Jharia, District Dhanbad ...... ..... .... Opp. Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner(s) :- Mrs Jasvinder Mazumdar, Advocate
For the State :- Mrs Nehala Sharmin, Advocate
----
12/10.04.2026 Heard Mrs. Jasvinder Mazumdar, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent State.
2. This petition has been filed for challenging the
illegality and impropriety of the order dated 16.04.2019 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad in MCA No.1363 of
2018, arising out of S.T. No.129 of 2018, corresponding to Dhansar
PS Case No.152 of 2016 (G.R. Case No.4536 of 2016) whereby the
learned court has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner under
section 228 of the Cr.P.C filed for discharge.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the
charge has already been framed and for challenging the charge
framing order, the IA was filed and the said IA was allowed by the
-1- Cr. Revision No. 660 of 2019
2026:JHHC:10489
order dated 14.12.2023. In view of that, she submits that charge
framing order is also under challenge.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only
on suspicion the petitioner has been implicated in this case and in
view of that, the petitioner has filed the discharge petition and
without appreciating the correct facts the learned court has been
pleased to dismiss the discharge petition and subsequently framed
the charge. According to her, there is no specific averment made in
the entire case record against the present petitioner but in spite of
that, this fact has not been considered by the learned court in
deciding the said petition. She next submits that if the cogent
reason is made out, the learned court was incumbent upon to pass
the appropriate order discharging the petitioner, however, the
learned court has erred in dismissing the said discharge petition and
framed the charge.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that
the case is registered under section 302 and section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the deceased has died in the office of
the petitioner and the dead body of the deceased was found in the
office of the present petitioner. She further submits that in the case
diary, the materials are there against the petitioner and she refers to
paragraph no.30 of the case diary, and submits that it has come that
in the office of the petitioner, the dead body of the deceased was
-2- Cr. Revision No. 660 of 2019
2026:JHHC:10489
found and that person was working in the office of this petitioner.
She next submits that, at this stage, the High Court is not required
to roam into to come to the conclusion and if the prima-facie
materials are there, the Court is competent to frame the charge and
in view of that the learned court has rightly framed the charge. She
next submits that due to stay granted by the High Court the
proceeding is still pending before the learned court.
6. From the records, it transpires that the informant namely
Lakhan Prasad Verma has filed the written report alleging therein
that his son namely, Sandip Kumar Verma was working since last 15
years in the office of Sudha Agency of the petitioner and before
three months to the occurrence he has come to learn that deceased
son of the informant wanted to take agency of Sudha Dairy in his
own name and he was making efforts for the same and which was
in the knowledge of the petitioner and for that on 8.11.2016 the
petitioner has threatened the deceased for dire consequences and
the deceased had told about it to his family members about two
days ago of the occurrence. Allegations are made that on 8.11.2016
at about. 2.00 pm, the above named accused in connivance with
other accused persons has committed murder of the deceased in the
office of Sudha Dairy, Howrah Motor and the informant had received
the information about the occurrence from one Dev Yadav. The final
form has been submitted saying the lack of evidence, however, the
-3- Cr. Revision No. 660 of 2019
2026:JHHC:10489
learned court has taken cognizance in the matter differing with the
final form. It is well settled that the learned court is competent to
differ from the final form and can take cognizance, however, the
only rider is that the order taking cognizance is required to be a
reasoned one and prima-facie materials are to be reflected in the
said order taking cognizance.
7. It transpires that the learned court while taking
cognizance, has dealt with the evidences and other materials and
thereafter has been pleased to take cognizance. The learned court
while taking cognizance, has been pleased to consider that in
paragraph nos.21 and 22 of the case diary, the witness (who is
brother of the deceased) has supported that the deceased was
working in the office of the petitioner and in his office of Sudha
Dairy there was dispute between the petitioner and the deceased as
the deceased was wanted to take the tender of Sudha Dairy in his
own name for which the petitioner has threatened the deceased of
dire consequences.
7. The learned court has further found that in paragraph
no.4 of the case diary, the dead body of the deceased was found in
the office of Sudha Dairy Collection Centre, Near Howra Motors,
which belongs to the accused and the other materials have already
been dealt by the learned court and in view of that, there is no
illegality in the order taking cognizance.
-4- Cr. Revision No. 660 of 2019
2026:JHHC:10489
8. The learned court has considered the discharge petition
and has discussed the materials and has rightly held that, at this
stage, neither the guilt of the accused has to be determined nor any
elaborate inquiry has to be undertaken to go deep into the various
aspects of the case. The leaned court has rightly held that, at this
stage, in deciding the petition under section 228 of the Cr.PC, the
standard of the test proof and the judgments are not required to be
considered. It is well settled that if the prima facie case is made out
and there is chance of facing the trial, the discharge petition cannot
be allowed in a routine manner.
9. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court
finds that the learned court's order is completely in accordance with
law. There is no illegality in the said order and further this Court
finds that the order taking cognizance is also an elaborate one and
the charge has been correctly explained to the petitioner. There is
no illegality in the order taking cognizance, deciding the discharge
petition and charge framing order, and as such, this petition, being
Cr. Revision No.660 of 2019, is, hereby, dismissed.
10. The interim order is vacated.
11. The learned trial court will proceed in accordance with
law.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated : 10.04.2026
SI/
-5- Cr. Revision No. 660 of 2019
