Mahesh Goswami And Jaideep Mukherjee vs The State Of Jharkhand And Jitendra Kumar

Cr.M.P. No.469 of 2023 ------

Mahesh Goswami, aged about 47 years, son of Yogeshwar Goswami, resident of Ramgarh Cant, Post Ramgarh, Police Station Ramgarh, District Ramgarh

Jaideep Mukherjee, aged about 55 years, son of Devi Prasad Mukherjee, resident of Kulti, Asansol, Post Kulti, Police Station Kulti, District Bardhman, State West Bengal … Petitioners Versus

The State of Jharkhand

Jitendra Kumar, son of Bhuneshwar Mahato, resident of Village Aara, Post Sarubera, Police Station Mandu, (Kujju), District Ramgarh … Opposite Parties ------For the Petitioners : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate Ms. Sonal Sodhani, Advocate ------

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in connection with Mandu (Kujju) O.P. P.S. Case No.48 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.197 of 2017 whereby and where under the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has

taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though charge has also been framed against the petitioners but the petitioners do not challenge the order framing charge against the petitioner. It is next submitted that the evidence of the prosecution is already over and the case is next fixed to 20.08.2026 for defence evidence. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.

Learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in this Cr.M.P. and submit that the petitioners, knowing pretty well that charge has already been framed against them, have not challenged the same; as in view of the direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of having in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons, cheated the informant to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court is of the considered view that since charge has already been framed against the petitioners but the petitioners have not challenged the same for the reasons best known to them and the trial is at the stage of defence evidence, therefore, considering the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to quash only the cognizance order when the order by which charge has been framed, is not under challenge and the evidence collected

during the trial by way of examination of witnesses have not been brought on record of this case.

Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)