Mitlesh Kumar Choudhary v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Nitesh Singh
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2608 of 2016 Mitlesh Kumar Choudhary Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Nitesh Singh --- …Petitioner …Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner For State For the opposite party no. 2 ---
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Advocate : Mr. Arun Kr. Pandey, Advocate : Mr. Imran Beigh, A.C. to Mr. Vishal Kr. Tiwary, Advocate 05/18.06.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent State and the opposite party no. 2. 2. The prayer in the petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 10.12.2015 arising out of Complaint Case No. 251 of 2013 pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa. 3. Complaint case was filed alleging therein that one Bilaiti Khair Block Chiniya, District- Garhwa, Ful Mohammad was allotted Indira Awas. Again in the year 2012-13, the B.P.L. Number of Ful Mohammad, his son Ziyaul Haque was allotted another Indira Awas which is mis- appropriation of Government money. The alleged accused has allotted Indira Awas to the relatives of Gangeshwar Singh who happens to be Pramukh of Chiniya Block. At Barwadih Panchayat, Mithilesh Kumar Choudhary deleting the name of Mandip Yadav and added the name of Babita Devi for allotment of Indira Awas. It has been alleged that Binod Yadav who is the husband of Babita Devi is the Government Servant. The matter was reported to the D.C. Garhwa for inquiry. Thereafter the alleged accused called the complaint in his residence at Garhwa and threatened and asked him to take back the application requesting for the inquiry. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was posted as Block Development Officer, Chiniya in the District of Garhwa at the relevant time and the false complaint case has been lodged against him. He submits that the petitioner acted lawfully as per rule for Indira Page 1 of 4 Cr.M.P. No. 2608 of 2016 Awas Yojana. He submits that for handing over the Indira Awas a Gram Sabha is required and for that Gram Sabha was organized and thereafter in the president ship of Mukhiya the house in question was allotted. He submits that this aspect was enquired by the Sub-Divisional Officer on the direction of The Deputy Commissioner and he draws the attention of the court to the report contained in Annexure-2 and submits that it has come in the report that Gram Sabha was conducted. He further submits that learned court inspite of that pleased to take cognizance under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and it has not taken the cognizance under Sections 420, 406 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code and holding that there are no sanctions under section 197 of Cr.P.C. He submits that in view of the cognizance order itself the allegation under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is maliciously made against the petitioner who happened to be the Government official who was discharging his duty in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the case is arising out of the complaint case. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the allegations are there of threatening and in view of that a case under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and as such the learned court has rightly been taken cognizance under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and this can be a subject matter of trial and at this stage this Court may not quash the entire criminal proceeding. 7. This Court has gone through the contents of the complaint as well as the order taking cognizance. The complaint petition is filed in absence of any affidavit and the prayer is made to transfer the case under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. to the police for investigation. There is no averment of the fact and the complainant has approached the police and the police has not registered the case and thereafter he filed the complaint case. As such this itself suggest that the maliciously the present case has been lodged against the petitioner who happened to be a Government official. There was no prior invocation of section 154(3) of Cr.P.C. while filing the petition before the learned court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the complaint case itself prayer has been made to send the case under Section Page 2 of 4 Cr.M.P. No. 2608 of 2016 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to the concerned police station for registration of the First Information Report. But the said complaint is not on affidavit which has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanaka Srivastava and another versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2015 (6) SCC 287. 8. Annexure-2 is a document which is a enquiry report of the Sub- Divisional Officer and it has been found that on the same date Gram Sabha was conducted thus the complaint of not following the Rule is falsely made in the complaint that too in a complaint case in absence of any affidavit. 9. Learned court has not taken cognizance under Sections 420, 406, 468 of the Indian Penal Code considering that there is no sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. however he has been pleased to take cognizance under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code prescribed punishment for offence “criminal intimidation” is defined under Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code is as under. : “Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. Explanation.- A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section." 11. Looking to the above definition of criminal intimidation it is crystal clear that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do. Page 3 of 4 Cr.M.P. No. 2608 of 2016 12. In the case in hand only allegation is made that the petitioner has threatened. The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant from the allegation made against the petitioner the intention is not there. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is a Government official who is discharging the duty. Learned court has not been pleased to take cognizance under Sections 420, 406 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code and he has taken cognizance under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 13.
Decision
In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 10.12.2015 arising out of Complaint Case No. 251 of 2013 pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa is quashed and this petition is allowed. 14. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of. MM/A.F.R. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Page 4 of 4 Cr.M.P. No. 2608 of 2016