1. Prahlad Singh @ Prahllad Singh aged about 43 years son of Late Madhu v. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Suman Devi aged about 42 years, wife of Late
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 154 of 2024 1. Prahlad Singh @ Prahllad Singh aged about 43 years son of Late Madhu Singh 2. Soni Devi aged about 41 years, wife of Prahlad Singh 3. Ankit Singh aged about 19 years, son of Prahlad Singh All residents of village- Dugda, P.O. and P.S. Dugda, District- … … Appellants Bokaro Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Suman Devi aged about 42 years, wife of Late Nepal Ram, resident of village- Dugda Coal Washri, P.O. and P.S. Dugda, District Bokaro … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Appellants For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
after finding that prima facie case has been made out for offence under Sections 406.420/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (r) and 3(1) (s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 13. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed. 14. However, it will be open to the appellants to raise all points which may be available under law at appropriate stage and dismissal of this case will not prejudice the appellants in any manner. 15. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX. Binit (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 4
Arguments
--- : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Spl. PP. --- 04/26.07.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. On 24.07.2024 when the case was taken up, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants has been recorded which reads as under:- “ 1. Learned counsel for the appellants and the State are present. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that by the impugned order, the learned court has found a prima- facie case for offence under Sections 406, 420, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. The learned counsel submits that he has annexed a copy of the partnership deed between Nepal Ram and Prahlad Singh which shows that there was a partnership between the husband of the complainant and the Prahlad Singh. The learned counsel has also referred to another agreement between the complainant and Prahlad Singh with regard to money transaction. 4. The further submits learned counsel the complainant has also filed a case for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on account of bouncing of cheque dated 02.02.2021 and the said case is pending. that 5. The learned counsel further submits that in view of the aforesaid premise, no case for offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC is made out and therefore the impugned order calls for interference. 6. He submits that once the opposite party No. 2 has already filed a case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, there is no question of another case under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. He submits that he shall file judgments to satisfy this Court on this point. 7. Learned counsel for the State while opposing the prayer has submitted that there are specific allegation with regard to abuse and therefore the provisions of SC/ST Act is attracted. He submits that merely because a case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has been filed, the same by itself cannot be a reason to interference with the impugned order. The learned counsel has also submitted that the intention of the appellants is also gathered by the subsequent act of issuance of cheque to the complainant. He has also submitted that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants are essentially to be considered at appropriate stage. 8. Post this case on 25.07.2024 for further hearing.” 3. Thereafter on 25.07.2024, when the matter was taken up, no one appeared on behalf of the appellants and the matter was adjourned for today i.e. 26.07.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that inquiry witness and solemn affirmation of the complainant reveals serious allegation against the appellants and therefore the order taking cognizance does not call for any interference. 5. This appeal has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Protest cum Complaint Case No. 556 of 2021 dated 25.05.2021 arising out of Dugda P.S. Case No. 11 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 231 of 2021 and the case is pending in the court of learned District cum Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, Bokaro. 6. The appellant has also prayed for quashing the order dated 22.1.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, Bokaro whereby cognizance for offence under Section 406/420/506506/34 of IPC and Section 3(1) (r) and 3(1) (s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as ‘aforesaid Act’) has been taken against the appellants. 2 7. The records of the case reveal that the appellants had filed one Cr. M.P. No. 999 of 2022 for the same relief but the said case was withdrawn with a liberty to file an appeal under section 14(A) (2) of the aforesaid Act and consequently the present appeal has been filed. 8. Upon perusal of the record this court finds that the respondent no. 2 had filed protest cum complaint on 25.05.2021 alleging that the complainant’s husband namely Nepal Ram and the accused Prahlad Singh were good friends and accused used to visit her house regularly to meet her husband. The husband retired from service in December 2016 and due to good relationship, the appellant Prahlad Singh had taken loan amounting to Rs. 40 lakh from the deceased husband by making a false promise that he will use this money in his business and profit will be shared and that amount will be returned in future. The amounts were paid through cheque/ cash/ account transfer and when the respondent no. 2 demanded the money, instead of returning the money, the appellant used dilly dallying tactics. In the meantime, the husband of the complainant died in October 2020 and when the complainant asked for return of money, not even a single penny was paid and the complainant was assaulted and abused by caste name. 9. Initially the complainant had filed FIR on 10.02.2021 which was registered as Dugda P.S. Case No. 11 of 2021 and upon investigation the police submitted final form on 31.03.2021 stating that the dispute is purely civil dispute, however the complainant filed protest petition which was numbered as C.P. Case No. 556 of 2021 in which cognizance has been taken by the impugned order. 10. One of ground which has been raised by the appellant during the course of hearing was that a case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has been registered and therefore present case is not maintainable. This Court finds that such plea is not tenable in the eyes of law. The case under Negotiable Instruments Act is certainly on account of bouncing of cheque said to have been issued on 13.01.2021 and the allegations as well as the cause of action in the present case are different as the date of alleged occurrence is said to be 10th/ 11th of January 2021 as is apparent from the solemn affirmation of the 3 complainant . This Court further finds that deed of partnership and other documents which have been placed on record by the appellants including the money receipt etc. are essentially matter of defence to be considered by the learned court at appropriate stage. 11. So far as impugned order taking cognizance is concerned, this court has gone through the solemn affirmation of the complainant and also the deposition of the inquiry witnesses where the child of the complainant and the immediate neighbour of the complainant have also supported the case of the complainant. The have stated that when the complainant asked for refund of money the appellant had abused the complainant by taking caste name. In the deposition the witnesses have described as to how the appellant had misbehaved with the complainant . 12. This Court is of the considered view that merely because there is transaction of money between the parties the same by itself is not sufficient to quash the order taking cognizance in the present case. This Court further finds that in the impugned order dated 22.01.2022 the materials have been considered and the summons have been issued