Jharkhand High Court
Sukhdeo Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand … Opposite … on 22 August, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.4541 of 2022 ------
1. Sukhdeo Singh, aged about 60 years.
2. Ram Prasad Singh @ Ram Singh, aged about 62 years.
Both petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are sons of late Murli Singh.
3. Ajay Singh, aged about 26 years.
4. Vikas Kr. Singh @ Vikas Singh, aged about 24 years.
Both petitioner Nos.3 & 4 are sons of Sukhdeo Singh (petitioner
No.1).
5. Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Kr. Singh @ Sonu Singh, aged about 34
years, S/o Ram Singh (petitioner No.2)
6. Amresh Kr. Singh @ Amresh Singh, aged about 25 years, S/o
Jaiprakash Singh.
Petitioner Nos.1 to 5 are resident of Village Gidhani, P.O. & P.S.
Jasidih, District Deoghar. Petitioner No.6 is resident of Village
Panro, P.O. & P.S. Sarath Madhupur, District Deoghar
… Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
——
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate Mr. Jagdeesh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, 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 set aside the order dated 27.09.2022 passed in Cr. Revision
No.73 of 2022 arising out of G.R. Case No.325 of 2019 corresponding to Jasidih
1 Cr. M.P. No.4541 of 2022
P.S. Case No.280 of 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX,
Deoghar whereby and where under the learned court below has dismissed the
Cr. Revision No.73 of 2022 and upheld the order dated 12.04.2022 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Deoghar rejecting the prayer of the
petitioners for discharge in connection with Jasidih P.S. Case No.280 of 2018
corresponding to G.R. Case No.325 of 2019.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner being the
member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object of the assembly
committed criminal trespass to the house of the informant, armed with the
dangerous and deadly weapons and caused sexual harassment and outraged
the modesty of the female members of the house of the informant. Police after
completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners
and consequent upon that the cognizance has been taken for the offences
punishable under Section 147, 323, 448, 307, 354(A), 379, 504 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. The petitioners filed a petition to discharge the petitioners
from the case which was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class,
Deoghar vide order dated 12.04.2022.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed Cr. Revision
No.73 of 2022 in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar which was
ultimately heard and dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX,
Deoghar vide order dated 27.09.2022 as already indicated above.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners filed the certified copy of the charge
framed by the learned A.C.J.M., Deoghar against the petitioners for having
committed the offences punishable under Section 147, 341, 323, 324, 426, 448,
2 Cr. M.P. No.4541 of 2022
354A, 325, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code on 13.10.2023. Keep the same
in the record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in respect of self-same
occurrence, the petitioners first instituted Jasidih P.S. Case No.279 of 2018. It is
submitted that the offence punishable under Section 324, 326 of the Indian
Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. It is then submitted that the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar by a cryptic and non-speaking
order without appreciation of the materials available in the record, has
dismissed the Criminal Revision. It is next submitted that the learned revisional
court has committed an error by observing that ingredients of the offence
punishable under Sections 324, 326 of the Indian Penal Code are attracted.
Hence, it is submitted that the prayer made in this Cr.M.P. be allowed.
7. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently
opposes the prayer of the petitioners and submits that though the charge
framed against the petitioners is not under challenge in this Cr.M.P. but
certainly, the learned A.C.J.M., Deoghar has erroneously framed the charge
under Section 426 of the Indian Penal Code instead writing the same as 326 but
the same at any time can be altered by the learned A.C.J.M. or its successor
court. It is next submitted by the learned Addl.P.P. that so far as the order
under challenge is concerned, the injury report of the victim namely Dilip
Thakur reveals that he has also sustained grievous injury. As per the injury
report the said victim has sustained one grievous injury and several simple
injuries. He was assaulted with dangerous weapons and the same has been
discussed by the learned revisional court in detail. It is then submitted that no
illegality has been committed by the learned courts below. It is next submitted
3 Cr. M.P. No.4541 of 2022
that this Cr.M.P. has been filed as a second revision which is not sustainable in
law. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P. being without any merit, be
dismissed.
8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully
going through the materials available in the record, this court finds that both
the trial court as well as the learned revisional court has considered in detail
about the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 324 and 326 of
the Indian Penal Code, then considered that the victims were assaulted with
dangerous weapons like hockey stick and iron rod. One of the victim namely
Dilip Thakur has received grievous injury as per the report submitted by the
Doctor, who examined the victim and after considering the same has arrived at
the conclusion that both offences punishable under Section 324 and 326 of the
Indian Penal Code is made out.
9. In view of the discussions made above, in the considered opinion of this
court, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX,
Deoghar is neither cryptic nor the same suffers from any illegality and it is a
settled principle of law that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. ought not
be exercised as a second revision which is prohibited in law.
10. So far as the contention of the learned Addl.P.P. regarding the error in
the charge is concerned, since the charge is not under challenge in this Cr.M.P. ,
but it is apparent that because of a printing error, the offence punishable under
section 326 of the Indian penal code has wrongly been mentioned as 426 of the
Indian Penal Code. So, the learned Magistrate may alter the same from 426 to
326 of the Indian Penal Code in accordance with law but otherwise there is no
illegality in the order dated 27.09.2022 passed in Cr. Revision No.73 of 2022 or
4 Cr. M.P. No.4541 of 2022
the order dated 12.04.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class,
Deoghar. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in
this Cr.M.P.
11. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P. being without any merit, is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 22nd of August, 2024
AFR/ Saroj
5 Cr. M.P. No.4541 of 2022