IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Revision No. 1077 of 2022

------

Krishnadeo Pandey

…

...

Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

…

…

Opp. Party

--------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

--------

For the Petitioner

:

Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate

For the State

:

Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl.P.P.

For the O.P. No. 2

:

Mr. Gopal K. Sinha, Advocate

Ms. Rukmini Kumari, Advocate

--------

Order No. 05: Dated: 25^th January, 2023

Heard the learned counsels for the parties are present.

At the outset, it has been pointed out on behalf of the

petitioner that this criminal revision application has been preferred

against the order dated 21.07.2022 passed by ld. Court below

whereby the prayer of the petitioner for discharge has been rejected

in connection with Ramna P.S. Case No. 74/2021 registered u/ss/

323, 34, 307, 379, 506/34 of IPC pending in the court below vide S.T.

Case No. 205 of 2022.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

there is a case and counter case between the parties and actually the

petitioner was assaulted by the informant people including the

Shambhu Nath Pandey and Ors. and to that effect a case has been

instituted vide Ramna P.S. Case No. 75 of 2021 dated 10.07.2021

registered u/s 323, 341, 504/34 of IPC. It has been pointed out that a

discharge petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner which has

been disposed of on 21.07.222 without taking into consideration the

injuries which are alleged to have been inflicted upon the petitioners

by the informant people for which the aforesaid counter case being

Ramna P.S. Case no. 75/2001 dated 10.07.2021 was instituted.

It has also been alleged that police is favouring informant

people and after instituting the case of the informant vide Ramna

P.S. Case No. 74/2021 registered u/s. 323, 334, 307, 379, 506 /34 of

IPC, the relevant and significant facts have not taken into account

by the investigating officer in the case instituted by petitioner

against the informant people and therefore despite the grievous

injury caused on the petitioner a case for the offence u/s 307 of IPC

has not been registered and in this view of the matter, the impugned

order dated 21.07.2022 is bad in law and fit to be set aside.

On the other hand, learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State

supported by the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 opposed the

contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that this

is not the stage to appreciate the injuries inflicted by both the sides

and it must have been decided during the course of the trial.

Learned counsel appearing for the State and O.P. No. 2 did

not controvert the fact that there was a case and counter case

between the parties and, therefore, appropriate order may be

passed.

Having taken into consideration the aforesaid facts and

circumstances and the submissions advanced on behalf of the

petitioners it is found just, fair and reasonable that both the cases

which are instituted by the petitioner vide Ramna P.S. Case No. 75

of 2021 and by the informant people vide Ramna P.S. Case No. 74 of

2021 are heard and disposed of together by the learned court below.

Accordingly, this Court at this stage does not want to interfere in

the impugned order, but, in the interest of justice a direction is given

to the concerned courts to try both the cases together as both cases

are arising out of a case and counter case.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned court and

also to the concerned Principal District and Sessions Judge with a

direction to ensure that both the cases are tried and disposed of

together by one court.

With this observation, this criminal revision application is

disposed of.

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

MM