At the initial stage of a criminal case, the court has only to see if there is a prima facie case against the accused. If there is sufficient material on record to frame charges against the accused, the discharge application should be dismissed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Revision No. 650 of 2006

---------

Harendra Kumar Pandey

..… Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand.

..... Opposite Party

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathy, Advocate

For the State

: Mr. Jitendra Pandey, APP

---------

11/Dated: 2^nd January, 2023

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

This revision application is directed against the order

dated 01.08.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate,

Ranchi; whereby the order framing of charge has been

passed in connection with Lalpur P.S. Case No. 144 of 2005

corresponding to G.R. No. 3758 of 2005 and the discharge

application dated 22.06.2006 preferred by the petitioner

has been dismissed.

3.

The brief facts of the case is that on the basis of

report given by Senior Manager of Central Bank, Lalpur

branch, one person named Shri Vijay Singh has presented

a cheque of Rs 3 lakhs before bank, which was in favour of

Sumit Kumar but the said cheque was earlier reported as

lost by the drawer namely M/S Securities and Intelligence

Services Private Limited and bank was requested to stop

payment. The said person, Vijay Singh was detained and

later petitioner was also arrested.

On the basis written report Lalpur P.S. Case No. 144

of 2005 has been registered under S. 420, 467, 468,471

and 120 B of India Penal Code.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is not named in the FIR and has been arrested on

the basis of suspicion. He further submits that the

petitioner has been made a scapegoat in the present case

and the entire case is concocted against the petitioner. He

further submits that there is no evidence on record which

prima facie makes out a case against petitioner. He lastly

submits that petitioner filed a discharge petition before the

learned Judicial Magistrate but the same was refused

without any cogent reason.

5.

Learned Addl. P.P opposes the contention of the

petitioner and submits that no interference is required.

6.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

after going through the impugned judgments and the

materials available on record, it appears that the refusal of

the discharge petition by the learned Judicial Magistrate

was on the basis that sufficient material were available on

record to frame charges against the accused. Thus, it do

not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and does not

require any interference as because, at the initial stage the

court has only to see the prima facie case. The finding of

the fact is fully bore out from the material on record.

7.

As a result, the instant revision application being

devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed.

8.

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the

courts below and also to the petitioner through the officer-

in-charge of concerned police station.

9.

Let the lower court record be sent to the court

concerned forthwith.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

Amardeep/