Mere Pendency Of Title Suit No Grounds For Discharge From Offense Of Theft Without Establishing Possession, Malicious Intent Of Complainant: Jharkhand HC
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that the mere pendency of a title suit does not justify discharging an individual from a theft offense unless a competent court has ruled that the accused was in possession and that the case was lodged maliciously by the informant.
Justice Gautam Kumar Chaoudhary observed, “Having considered the submissions, this Court is of the view that mere pendency of a title suit cannot be a ground for claiming discharge from the for offence of theft, unless and until there is an order of competent Court that it was the accused who was in possession, and informant had lodged the case maliciously as such no relief can be granted at the stage of discharge. Plea of title and/or possession in defence can be considered during trial and not at the time of framing of charge”
According to the factual matrix of the case, the FIR alleged that the theft of paddy was committed by Roshan Hazam and his father Anuj Hazam, along with other unnamed accused persons, on the field of the informant. A charge sheet was submitted under Section 379 of the IPC against both named accused persons. A discharge petition was filed but was rejected on the grounds that a prima facie case was made out against the accused persons. Aggrieved by this, the criminal revision petition was filed.
The Court observed that a plea of title and/or possession in defense can be considered during trial and not at the time of framing of charge. Based on these considerations, the court found no merit in the criminal revision and dismissed it.
Case Title: Roshan Hazam @ Roshan Baraik V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 123