1. Arjun Rai 2. Kapil Deo Rai @ Kapil Rai 3. Ashok Rai v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Nakul Rai
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 474 of 2021 ----- 1. Arjun Rai 2. Kapil Deo Rai @ Kapil Rai 3. Ashok Rai Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Nakul Rai ----- … …. Petitioners … …. Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
before this Court in Cr. M.P. 2813 of 2019. The matter was remitted back by this Court vide order dated 10.08.2020, to the court below for passing speaking order. After remand, the impugned order has been passed on 12.10.2020 which is under challenge before this Court. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint has been filed by a private party regarding interpolation in Register-II which is kept by the revenue authorities. Before filing the complaint, the matter was reported to the LRDC by the complainant and the LRDC forwarded the matter for enquiry to the Circle Officer on the basis of which Misc. Case No. 11 of 2013-14 was registered and after conducting enquiry, the Circle Officer vide order dated 01.11.2013 passed held that there was no such interpolation in Register-II. No material has been produced before the court below during enquiry to make out a prima facie case that there had been interpolation and the case rests on the bald assertion in the complaint petition and the statement of enquiry witnesses. Although it has been asserted that after settlement of Hukumnama Jamabandi was opened and rent receipt was issued but not a chit of paper was filed. 5. Learned counsel for the State, assisted by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, opposed the petition and submits that the court below has passed the speaking and lengthy order. At the stage of issuance of process, only there should be material to make out a prima facie case and the allegations are based on definite ground. At this stage, it would not incumbent on the part of the complainant to adduce the documentary evidence and, therefore, they were not produced. 6. While dealing with such cases the Court of magistrate need to keep in mind the dicta as laid down in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 “28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. 29. No doubt the Magistrate can discharge the accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the charge to be groundless, but that does not mean that the accused cannot approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code or Article 227 of the Constitution to have the proceeding quashed against him when the complaint does not make out any case against him and still he must undergo the agony of a criminal trial.” In 2022 (7) SCC 124 wherein it has been held that Criminal cases cannot be instituted for settling the civil dispute/ relief. Here in the present case a private complaint has been filed regarding interpolation in revenue records. The earlier made by the complainant to the LRDC was inquired into by the circle officer and found to be not true. There is no document filed in the present case to buttress the charges of interpolation in the revenue records. It was for this reason that earlier complaint was dismissed and even in the present order the learned court below has noted that no document has been filed. On the bald assertions made in the complaint petition and oral statements made in enquiry, this court is of the view that no prima facie case is made out for the alleged offence and it will be an abuse of process of Court to proceed further on these materials. The impugned order taking cognizance as well as the summoning order dated 12.10.2020 is set aside. Criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. AKT (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Arguments
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, A.P.P. : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate ----- Oral Order 10 / Dated : 15.02.2023 1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance as well as the summoning order dated 12.10.2020 under which prima facie case has been found to be made out under Sections 420, 120B, 323, 506 of IPC along with the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 1753 of 2014. 2. The case of the complainant in brief is that the petitioners in collusion with the revenue authorities had made interpolation in Register-II at Page No. 55/2 of Register-II by interpolating the name of Butram rai in place of Durga Rai. Learned court below after recording the statement of the complainant and three witnesses in enquiry dismissed the complaint vide order dated 17.01.2018. The complainant preferred Cr. Revision No. 33 of 2018 against the said order of dismissal. The impugned order was set aside and the case was remitted back to the court below for passing the order afresh after hearing both sides. 3. After enquiry, learned court below found the case to be made out and issued the summoning order against the petitioners, which was challenged