2026:JHHC:10489 -1- Cr. Revision No. 660 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- Cr. Revision No. 660 of 2019 ---- Sujit Kumar Thakur, aged about 50 years, son of late Ras Bihari Thakur, resident of Sachdeva Colony, Jorapokhar, PO Dhanbad PS Dhansar, District Dhanbad …… …. .... Petitioner(s) -- Versus -- 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Lakhan Prasad Verma, son of late Govind Ram Verma, resident of Boka Pahadi, behind Jharia Water Board, PO and PS Jharia, District Dhanbad …… ….. .... Opp. Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner(s) :- Mrs Jasvinder Mazumdar, Advocate For the State :- Mrs Nehala Sharmin, Advocate ---- 12/10.04.2026 Heard Mrs. Jasvinder Mazumdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State. 2. This petition has been filed for challenging the illegality and impropriety of the order dated 16.04.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad in MCA No.1363 of 2018, arising out of S.T. No.129 of 2018, corresponding to Dhansar PS Case No.152 of 2016 (G.R. Case No.4536 of 2016) whereby the learned court has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner under section 228 of the Cr.P.C filed for discharge. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the charge has already been framed and for challenging the charge framing order, the IA was filed and the said IA was allowed by the 2026:JHHC:10489 -2- Cr. Revision No. 660 of 2019 order dated 14.12.2023. In view of that, she submits that charge framing order is also under challenge. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only on suspicion the petitioner has been implicated in this case and in view of that, the petitioner has filed the discharge petition and without appreciating the correct facts the learned court has been pleased to dismiss the discharge petition and subsequently framed the charge. According to her, there is no specific averment made in the entire case record against the present petitioner but in spite of that, this fact has not been considered by the learned court in deciding the said petition. She next submits that if the cogent reason is made out, the learned court was incumbent upon to pass the appropriate order discharging the petitioner, however, the learned court has erred in dismissing the said discharge petition and framed the charge. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the case is registered under section 302 and section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the deceased has died in the office of the petitioner and the dead body of the deceased was found in the office of the present petitioner. She further submits that in the case diary, the materials are there against the petitioner and she refers to paragraph no.30 of the case diary, and submits that it has come that in the office of the petitioner, the dead body of the deceased was 2026:JHHC:10489 -3- Cr. Revision No. 660 of 2019 found and that person was working in the office of this petitioner. She next submits that, at this stage, the High Court is not required to roam into to come to the conclusion and if the prima-facie materials are there, the Court is competent to frame the charge and in view of that the learned court has rightly framed the charge. She next submits that due to stay granted by the High Court the proceeding is still pending before the learned court. 6. From the records, it transpires that the informant namely Lakhan Prasad Verma has filed the written report alleging therein that his son namely, Sandip Kumar Verma was working since last 15 years in the office of Sudha Agency of the petitioner and before three months to the occurrence he has come to learn that deceased son of the informant wanted to take agency of Sudha Dairy in his own name and he was making efforts for the same and which was in the knowledge of the petitioner and for that on 8.11.2016 the petitioner has threatened the deceased for dire consequences and the deceased had told about it to his family members about two days ago of the occurrence. Allegations are made that on 8.11.2016 at about. 2.00 pm, the above named accused in connivance with other accused persons has committed murder of the deceased in the office of Sudha Dairy, Howrah Motor and the informant had received the information about the occurrence from one Dev Yadav. The final form has been submitted saying the lack of evidence, however, the 2026:JHHC:10489 -4- Cr. Revision No. 660 of 2019 learned court has taken cognizance in the matter differing with the final form. It is well settled that the learned court is competent to differ from the final form and can take cognizance, however, the only rider is that the order taking cognizance is required to be a reasoned one and prima-facie materials are to be reflected in the said order taking cognizance. 7. It transpires that the learned court while taking cognizance, has dealt with the evidences and other materials and thereafter has been pleased to take cognizance. The learned court while taking cognizance, has been pleased to consider that in paragraph nos.21 and 22 of the case diary, the witness (who is brother of the deceased) has supported that the deceased was working in the office of the petitioner and in his office of Sudha Dairy there was dispute between the petitioner and the deceased as the deceased was wanted to take the tender of Sudha Dairy in his own name for which the petitioner has threatened the deceased of dire consequences. 7. The learned court has further found that in paragraph no.4 of the case diary, the dead body of the deceased was found in the office of Sudha Dairy Collection Centre, Near Howra Motors, which belongs to the accused and the other materials have already been dealt by the learned court and in view of that, there is no illegality in the order taking cognizance. 2026:JHHC:10489 -5- Cr. Revision No. 660 of 2019 8. The learned court has considered the discharge petition and has discussed the materials and has rightly held that, at this stage, neither the guilt of the accused has to be determined nor any elaborate inquiry has to be undertaken to go deep into the various aspects of the case. The leaned court has rightly held that, at this stage, in deciding the petition under section 228 of the Cr.PC, the standard of the test proof and the judgments are not required to be considered. It is well settled that if the prima facie case is made out and there is chance of facing the trial, the discharge petition cannot be allowed in a routine manner. 9. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court finds that the learned court’s order is completely in accordance with law. There is no illegality in the said order and further this Court finds that the order taking cognizance is also an elaborate one and the charge has been correctly explained to the petitioner. There is no illegality in the order taking cognizance, deciding the discharge petition and charge framing order, and as such, this petition, being Cr. Revision No.660 of 2019, is, hereby, dismissed. 10. The interim order is vacated. 11. The learned trial court will proceed in accordance with law. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated : 10.04.2026 SI/