Ravindra Singh @ Rabindra Singh, aged about 65 years, son of Shivjee Singh, resident v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rajesh Kumar Singh, son of late Ramji Singh
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 415 of 2020 Ravindra Singh @ Rabindra Singh, aged about 65 years, son of Shivjee Singh, resident of Flat No.11, Rajputana Tower, Chira-Chas, PO & PS Chas, District Bokaro. ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rajesh Kumar Singh, son of late Ramji Singh, resident of Flat No.12, Rajputana Tower, Chira-Chas, PO & PS Chas, District Bokaro. ... …. Opp. Parties -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND ------ : Mr. Amrendra Pradhan, Advocate : Mr. Vineet Kr.Vashistha, Spl. PP : Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Navneet Sahay, Advocate For the Petitioner For the State For the OP No.2 04/10.07.2024
Facts
Heard the learned counsels for the parties. -------- 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner prays to quash the order dated 23.08.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro whereby the petitioner was summoned for the offence under section 387 of IPC and also sought to quash the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.616 of 2018 pending before the court of the learned J.M. 1st Class, Bokaro. 3.
Legal Reasoning
offence under section 387 of IPC is prima facie made out. The affidavit is on behalf of Rajesh Kumar Singh is on record and the statement of the inquiry witness CW1- Gopal Prasad Singh, CW2- Avinash Kr. Mishra, CW3- Binod Kr. Singh are made annexure-CA/2 series. These witnesses also categorically narrated that the accused Ravindra Singh has been making demand of ransom and has also criminally intimidated him, if the same demand was not given, the harm would be caused to the complainant and also the bearer of the flat in the apartment. 7. From the allegations made in the complaint and also statement of complainant and inquiry witnesses there are sufficient ground to proceed against the accused/petitioner for the offence under section 387 of IPC. The impugned order bears no infirmity. There is no ground to quash the entire proceeding of the criminal Case No. 616 of 2018 . 8. So far as veracity of allegations made in the complaint is concerned, for the same, the petitioner has remedy to move the application for discharge if no alleged offence is made out against him from the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses under section 244 of Cr.PC. At this initial stage the prosecution cannot be throttled. 9. Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed. RKM (Subhash Chand, J.) 4
Arguments
Mr. Amrendra Pradhan, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that dispute between the parties is of commercial nature. Admittedly, the complainant and the wife of the accused-petitioner herein and Mukesh Kumar, the brother of complainant are the partners of “Vaibhav Builders & Developers”. To this effect, annexure no.2 has been annexed which is the deed of partnership. The very opening para of the complaint show that the dispute between the parties was of commercial nature. So far as the allegations which is made against the petitioner in regard to demand of the ransom and also criminally intimidating him is concerned the same has been given in the complaint in order to give the criminal colour to the allegations which relate to the dispute exclusively of civil nature. It is also further submitted that indeed an FIR was lodged on behalf of the petitioner under section 420 of IPC against Rajesh Kumar Singh on 01.06.2018, this complaint has been lodged as a counter blast of the same. In view of the above contended to quash the impugned order and entire proceeding of the criminal case. 4. On behalf of State, learned Spl. PP Mr. Vineet Kr.Vashistha and on behalf of op no.2 learned counsel Mr. Navneet Sahay vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that though the genesis of lodging this complaint are in the civil dispute; yet from the act of the accused who is petitioner herein the specific offence under section 387 of IPC is made out. It is also further submitted that from the bare allegations made in the complaint, the offence is made out and the same is also supported with the statement of complainant himself under section 200 of Cr.PC and also inquiry witnesses. Their statement have been made part of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of op no.2. In view of the above contended that the impugned order bears no illegality. 5. From the very perusal of the complaint which is annexure no.1, it is found that in this complaint, the complainant is Rajesh Kumar and there are two accused Ravindra Singh @ Rabindra Singh and Umesh Singh. The occurrence in this complaint is shown of 05.04.2010 to onward continuously, which relates to land of Khata No. 307, Plot No.729 situated in Mouza- Chas. It has been alleged that the father of the complainant has purchased the land of Khata No. 307, Plot No.729 on 23.06.1988 by way of 2 sale deed no.6343. The name of his nephew Ravindra Singh was also got recorded therein on account of sympathy. The family settlement arrived on 05.04.2010 between the complainant and the accused persons and multistory apartment was desired to be erected on 03.08.2012. Ravindra Singh who is also the partner alongwith the complainant, his brother and mother of “Vaibhav Builders & Developers”, as his wife is the partner of the same, a development agreement was executed under certain terms and conditions. But the accused Ravindra Singh making breach of the agreement began to make demand of ransom time to time. He claimed 50% share of him and also stated that if the same was not given, no construction could be raised. It is also alleged that the accused also criminally intimidated if the amount of his share was not given, he will not permit to enter in the flat by any holder of the flat. He also threatened that if the 50% share was not given to him he would get them shot. It is also alleged that Ravindra Singh also belongs to group of unlawful element and claiming his undue share he is continuously demanding ransom. The accused no.2 is also shown to have collusion with him. In support of this complaint the complainant examined himself and also examined the complainant witnesses and the impugned order was passed on 23.08.2019 against both the accused persons Ravindra Singh and Umesh Singh for the offence under section 387 of IPC. 6. From the very perusal of the complaint, the initial dispute between the parties is in regard to the share as per agreement to raise the apartment on the land of joint partnership. Though the wife of the petitioner Ravindra Singh is also the partner of the said firm of which the complainant is also the partner; yet the allegations which have been made against the 3 petitioner in para 4 to 10 of the complaint from them the ingredients of the