JHARKHAND HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON NIRMALENDRA CHANDRA PANDEY V/S THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR.

RANCHI, India, Sept. 2 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on July 1:

1. 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 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.

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.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=%2FE3WiyNUWFIaR1oBGE62Wj3orRl%2FGoRBjq%2BFATLT1eWMnwoQCVpcVl4VnuC59%2Ffe&caseno=Cr.Rev./1269/2019&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010326592019&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.