Revision petition challenging the legality of former order rejected due to less ground to interfere with the order – Jharkhand high court
A criminal revision petition challenging the correctness of the order passed by the court in (Cri.Misc.Application No. 1007/2018 (S.T. Case No. 113 of 2017) was dismissed by the single judge bench of HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY in the case of Hridayendra Kumar and ors. Versus the state of Jharkhand and Ors. (Cr. Rev. No. 478 of 2019)
The learned counsel for petitioners submitted that First Information Report was instituted and submission of the final form indicated defect of facts and a protest petition was filed through which offense under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code was found and cognizance was taken. And submits that that the victim of the case had committed suicide as it is supported by a suicide note which was sent for forensic examination and accordingly, no case under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was made out.
The learned counsel on behalf of opposite party no.2 opposes that the prayer and submits that no case for interference in the impugned order refusing to discharge the petitioners is made out and also submits that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and it indicates strong suspicion against the petitioners.
After considering both the parties the court founds that the police submitted the final form stating that there was defect of facts. The complainant filed the protest petition on 12.09.2006 and after inquiry, the learned court below found a prima facie case under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. And considering the other material on record, the learned court found that there was strong suspicion against the accused persons and accordingly, rejected the discharge petition.
Therefore this court having gone through the impugned order dated 19.03.2019, does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order of rejection of discharge petition. The impugned order is a well-reasoned order considering the materials on record and no illegality or perversity as such has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction. Hence no ground to interfere with the impugned order is made out. Consequently, this criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Judgement reviewed by Naveen sharma