RAMESH RAMCHANDRA, SON OF LATE NANDLAL, C/O VAIBHAV JEWELERS, CHOWK SARRAFA, P.O. : G.P.O., P.S. KOTWALI DISTRICT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Ramesh Ramchandra has challenged the legality of the order dated 20.11.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Dhanbad in S.T. No.411 of 2013 whereby and where under the petition filed by the petitioner for his discharge under Sec. 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code'), has been rejected.

(2.) The prosecution case, as it appears from the written report of the informant-Jawahar Lal, in short, is that he along with Raj Kumar Baranwal were the partners of Agro Fresh Flour Mill, Pvt. Ltd. but as some dispute cropped up between them relating to account of company, this informant demanded Rs.10,20,000.00 of his account from Raj Kumar Baranwal who in order to pay the said amount called him to Dhanbad on 05.02.2011 and he went to Dhanbad for receiving money and met him outside railway station where he found Raj Kumar Baranwal, his brother-in-law Ramesh Ramchandra (petitioner) and two unknown persons there. The said Raj Kumar Baranwal handed over him a cheque of Rs.10,00,000.00 of Central Bank which he kept in his hand bag and at about 5.00 p.m. while he was coming back from Dhanbad to Asansol by Burdwan Hatia Passenger and the said train reached Mugma Station, the said Raj Kumar Baranwal called him towards lavatory of the compartment and the other persons including this petitioner followed him. The said Raj Kumar Baranwal started pressing his neck and his hand bag containing the said cheque of Rs.10,00,000.00 and cash of Rs.2000.00 with railway ticket was snatched. By that time the train reached Kumardhubi Railway Station and all the accused persons stepped down from the train and fled away on two motorcycles.

(3.) On the basis of the said written report, the aforesaid case bearing Dhanbad G.R.P.S. Case No.14 of 2011 was registered under Sections 341/342/379/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against this petitioner and Raj Kumar Baranwal in the aforesaid Sections. Where after the court took cognisance of the offence. After commitment of the case to the court of Sessions, a petition under Sec. 227 of the Code for his discharge was filed by the petitioner and the court below after hearing the parties and examining the evidence and materials on record, rejected the prayer by order impugned.