Niraj Jain vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 8.10.2021 passed in Criminal Revision No.30 of 2021 whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribag has dismissed the revision application preferred by the petitioner.

On the written report of the petitioner the case has been lodged alleging therein that his shop is located at Gola Road, Boddom Bazar, Hazaribag in which he does business of cigrate. For the last few days the uncle of the informatnt namely Santosh Kumar Jain and his two sons namely Rajat Jain and Raunak Jaiin used to create problems in the smooth working of business, for which the informant petitioner has written application before the Sub Divisional Officer, Hazaribag on 22.3.2021, 28.3.2021 the accused persons were doing construction work for which the informant went and found the back wall of his 2nd shop broken, the goods present in the shop of the informant was stolen by the opposite parties. In the shop of the informant five cartoons of cigrate, Rs.60,000/- kept in the cash counter three tables, six chairs, three almirah, documents relating to cases, documents relating to the shop and other articles were stolen by the opposite parties. The total price of stolen articles was Rs.3.5 lakhs. In the FIR the informant has mentioned that he has full believe that the articles kept in the shop of the informant was stolen by the accused persons who are the O.P.s in the present case.

Mr. Shikarwar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said case was investigated by the police and the charge sheet has been submitted on 23.05.2021 under section 448 IPC . He submits that however the charge sheet has not been submitted under section 461 and 379 of the IPC. He submits that the learned court has taken congnizance under section 448 of the IPC and the said order was challenged before the learned revisional court saying that the order taking cognizance is bad in law as sections 461 and 379 of the IPC were not added in the order taking cognizance. He submits that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the correct position of law and wrongly has held that the order dated 5.7.2021 is interlocutory in nature and as such the present revision petition is not maintainable. On this ground he submits that the Court may quash the order of the learned revisional court and direction may kindly be issued to add sections 461 and 379 of the IPC.

The learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the learned court has passed the reasoned order and the learned court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhu Limaya v. State of Maharsahtra, reported in 1978 AIR 47.

The Court has perused the impugned order of the learned court and finds that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that the congnizance order can be challenged in revision and that is not res-integra however in the present case the main grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Court has not taken cognizance under sections 461 and 379 of the IPC and has taken congnizance under section 448 of the IPC. The learned court further held that in view of section 216 Cr.PC it is crystal clear that at any stage the charge can be altered and in that view of the matter the learned court has dismissed the petition. The Court finds that the finding of the learned court is correct as under section 216 Cr.P.C the charge can be altered at any stage and it is for the petitioner to make out a case of alteration of charge under section 216 Cr.P.C.

No relief can be extended to the petition as there is no illegality in the impugned order.

Accordingly W.P.(Cr.) No. 03 of 2022 is dismissed.