The High Court
Case Details
With 1 Cr.M.P. No.862 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 862 of 2020 Cr.M.P. No.531 of 2020 1. Tanmoy Sen Gupta @ Tanmaey Sen Gupta aged about 62 years son of Lt. Apurba Bhusan Sen, resident of Flat A 103, Gautam Apartment, Raheja Township P.O. Malad East, P.S..- Dindoshi, Dist.- Mumbai, State Maharashtra 2. Rajesh Kumar Singh, aged about 45 years son of Sri Ram Chandra Singh, resident of Flat A 303, Gautam Apartment, Raheja Township P.O. Malad East, P.S..- Dindoshi, Dist.- Mumbai, State Maharashtra 3. Prasant Yadav @ Prashant Yadav aged about 32 years son of Sri Paras Ram Yadav, resident of At & P.O. Aurangabad (Ahher), P.S. Gulaothi, Dist.- Bulandshahr State Uttar Pradesh 4. Rakesh Gander @ Rakesh Ganedhar aged about 34 years son of Sri Heera Lal Gander, resident of New Mata Kund Road, Swastik Sadan, P.O. Jodhpur, P.S. Soorsagar, Dist. Jodhpur, State Rajasthan
Legal Reasoning
5. Deepak Mahur @ Deepak Mahul, aged about 35 years son of Sri Raj Kumar Mahur, resident of 96 Hathroi Bawdi Ajmeer Road, P.O. G.P.O. Jaipur, P.S.- Vidhyakpuri, Dist. Jaipur, State Rajasthan .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Varsha Makani wife of Sri Samir Himmat Lal Makani, resident of 2B Elite Apartment, 7th Extension Road, Sonari, P.O. & P.S.- Sonari, Dist.- East Singhbhum …. With Opp. Parties Cr.M.P. No. 531 of 2020 1. Jiten Hiralal Somya @ Jatin Harilal Somaiya, aged about 47 years son o Harilal Somaiya, resident of Tridev Tower, Bhakti Marg. Opp. R-Mall, Near Vardhman Nagar, Mumbai P.O.- Suburban, P.S.- Mulund West, Dist. Mumbai (Maharastra) With 2 Cr.M.P. No.862 of 2020 Cr.M.P. No.531 of 2020 2. Rajive Narayan @ Rajeev Narayanan Nair, aged about 44 years, son of Narayanan Nair, resident of Sai Ganesh Kutir A 104, Vijay Nagar, Near St. Thomas School, P.O. and P.S. Kalyan, Dist. Thane (Maharashtra) 3. Mohan Anant Mool @ Mohan Anant Mulye, son of Anant Raghunath Mulye aged about 42 years resident of near Malhar Hotel, A 204 Sanmitra Society, M.G. Road, P.O Naupada P.S. Thane Dist. Thane (Maharashtra) 4. Raju Chand Navani @ Raju Ramchand Navani, aged about 53 years, son of Ramchand Navani, resident of Flat No.C/7, Mirani Nagar, Kopri Colony, Thane, P.O & P.S. Thane Dist. Thane (Maharashtra) 5. Ganesh Gajanand Manjrekar @ Ghanshyam Ramakant Manjrekar, aged about 36 years, son of Ramakant Bhagwan Manjrekar resident of Near Chanda Medical, 22/2 Gangaram Mahatre Building, Navapada Shubhash Road, Dombivali, Kalyan, Vishnunagar, Thane, P.O & P.S. Thane Dist. Thane (Maharashtra) 6. Prakash Ramchandra Jadhav, aged about 42 years son of Ramchandra Dnyanu Jadhav, resident of at Post Gude, Taluka Shirala, P.O. & P.S. Gude, Dist. Sangli (Maharashtra) 7. Sri Ram Ayyer @ Ram Ayyer, aged about 40 years, son of Balasubramaniam Iyer, resident of 501, 5th Floor, Sahil CHS Ltd. S.V. Road, Bandra (W), P.O. & P.S. Bandra, Dist. Mumbai (Maharashtra) 8. Jaichandra Bhavvar @ Sri Jaichandra Bhavvar, aged about 64 years son of Natvarlal Keshavlal Bhavsar resident of B/71 Goyal Tower, Panjarapool, Char Rasta, P.O. & P.S. Char Rasta, Dist. Ahamadabad (Gujarat) 9. Mukesh Dinanathmani @ Mukesh Dinanath Ramani, aged about 60 years son of Dinanathmani, resident of 100 Moru Milap, 15th Road, opposite Khar Gymkhana (W), P.O. & P.S. Khar Delivery, Dist.- Mumbai (Maharashtra) 10. Sunny Mukesh Ramani, aged about 35 years, son of Mukesh Ramani, resident of 100 Moru Milap, 15th Road, opposite Khar Gymkhana (W), P.O. & P.S. Khar Delivery, Dist.- Mumbai (Maharashtra) 11. Hardik Suresh Parekh, aged about 42 years, son of Suresh Mangaldas Parekh, resident of Flat No.202, Swastika Value Heights, Tilak Nager With 3 Cr.M.P. No.862 of 2020 Cr.M.P. No.531 of 2020 Chembur, P.O. & P.S. Chembur, Dist. Mumbai (Maharashtra) .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Varsha Makani wife of Sri Samir Himmat Lal Makani, resident of 2B Elite Apartment, 7th Extension Road, Sonari, P.O. & P.S.- Sonari, Dist.- East Singhbhum Opp. Parties …. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner For the State For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. P.P. : Mr. Taruk Kumar, Addl. P.P. : Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. 2. Heard the parties. Both these criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.301 of 2019 as well as order taking cognizance dated 23.11.2019 under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of Indian Penal Code pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur. 3. The petitioners of Cr.M.P. No.862 of 2020 are the officers of the Allahabad Bank at J.V.P.D. Branch, Mumbai and the petitioners of Cr.M.P. No.531 of 2020 are the residents of State of Maharashtra and the allegation against them is that the petitioners of Cr.M.P. No.531 of 2020 being the private persons in collusion with the 4 Cr.M.P. No.862 of 2020 With Cr.M.P. No.531 of 2020 petitioners of Cr.M.P. No.862 of 2020 who are the officers of the bank by forging the signature has withdrew huge amount of money from the loan account of the husband of the complainant granted by the Allahabad Bank J.V.P.D. Branch, Mumbai from the said branch. The only connection of this case with Jamshedpur is that the company of the husband of the complainant in the name and style of M/s Fiber Texfab Pvt. Ltd. of which the husband of the complainant is a director had its head office at Mumbai but having a branch office at Kamani Center, Bistupur at Jamshedpur. The complainant first lodged Sonari P.S. Case No.159 of 2017. Police took up investigation of the case. During the investigation, police received a letter from the Senior Inspector of Juhu Police Station, Mumbai to the effect that upon verification of the F.I.R. lodged with Sonari P.S. Case No.159 of 2017, the police of Juhu Police Station came to know that the case vide F.I.R. No.100 of 2016 under Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 409 and 120B of Indian Penal Code was registered on 21.04.2016 by M.R.A. Marg Police Station by the complaint of Mr. Naresh Himmatlal Makani who is the brother-in–law of the complainant herein. The facts, incident and the accused of both the F.I.R.s being Sonari P.S. Case No.159 of 2017 and F.I.R. No.100 of 2016 of M.R.A. Marg Police Station, Mumbai are same. Hence, the Mumbai police did not register the F.I.R. Police of Jamshedpur after investigation of the case submitted final form for lack of evidence against the accused persons and did not send them up for trial. After submission of the final report by the police, the complainant filed a protest-cum- With 5 Cr.M.P. No.862 of 2020 Cr.M.P. No.531 of 2020 complaint petition which was registered as Protest Petition No.301 of 2019 by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur arising out of G.R. Case No.2801 of 2017. In the said protest petition, the learned Magistrate recorded the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and also the statement of enquiry witness no.1- Samir Himmatlal Makani who is the husband of the complainant and found that prima facie there are sufficient materials in the record to take cognizance of the offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B of Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is absolutely no material in the record to suggest that any part of the offence in respect of which prima facie case was found by the learned Magistrate has taken place at Jamshedpur and all the alleged offences has taken place at Mumbai hence, the learned Magistrate at Jamshedpur has no jurisdiction to entertain the protest petition. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr. reported in (2004) 8 SCC 100, paragraph nos. 19 of which reads as under :- “19. When the aforesaid legal principles are applied, to the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the complaint petition, the inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose in Chennai and, therefore, the Magistrate concerned had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The proceedings are quashed. The complaint be returned to Respondent 2 who, if she so chooses, may file the same in the appropriate court to be dealt with in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly allowed.” and submits that no part of the offence has been committed at Jamshedpur hence, the learned Magistrate at Jamshedpur has no With 6 Cr.M.P. No.862 of 2020 Cr.M.P. No.531 of 2020 jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Hence, it is submitted that the proceeding before the learned Magistrate be quashed and the complaint be returned to the opposite party no.2 if she so chooses to file the same in appropriate court to be dealt with in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand oppose the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that since the Branch office of the company is situated at Jamshedpur and the informant is a resident of Jamshedpur hence, the Jamshedpur court has jurisdiction to entertain the case. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, this Court finds that there is absolutely no material in the record to suggest that any part of the alleged occurrence has taken place at Jamshedpur rather all the alleged offences had taken place in the State of Maharashtra particularly in Mumbai. Hence, in view of the principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr. (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the learned Magistrate at Jamshedpur has no jurisdiction to proceed in the case. 7. Accordingly, the proceeding before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint Case No.301 of 2019 is quashed. With 7 Cr.M.P. No.862 of 2020 Cr.M.P. No.531 of 2020 8. The learned judicial Magistrate concerned is directed to return the complaint to the opposite party no.2 and if she chooses, she may file the same in appropriate court to deal with it in accordance with law. 9. In the result, both the criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed. 10. The interim order if any passed in both the criminal miscellaneous petitions is vacated. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 03rd April, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)