Kishor Prasad, resident of Tetariya, P.O. and P.S. Silaw, Dist. Nalanda (Bihar) v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1134 of 2024 ------ Suraj Kumar, aged about 28 years, son of Kishor Prasad, resident of Tetariya, P.O. and P.S. Silaw, Dist. Nalanda (Bihar) Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party … Petitioner ------ For the Petitioner For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, Addl.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 01.12.2023 passed in connection with G.R. Case No.2297 of 2018 corresponding to Lower Bazar P.S. Case No.135 of 2018 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi found the prima facie case for proceeding against the petitioner and has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 417, 419 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 10 of the Jharkhand Conduct of Examination Act, 2001. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the allegations against the petitioner is that the petitioner by deceiving the personnel engaged in conducting the Jharkhand Competitive Examination, 2017 conducted for the recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in Jharkhand Combined Police; deceived the 1 Cr. M.P. No.1134 of 2024 persons engaged in conducting the examination and induced such person so deceived to ensure that someone else took the preliminary examination and the mains examination of the said recruitment examination on behalf of the petitioner; which could be detected as the biometric data of the person who took the test did not match with the petitioner who appeared at the physical efficiency test after succeeding in the preliminary and mains examination. During the investigation of the case, no coercive step/order was passed by the court and after completion of investigation, police found allegations against the petitioner to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Section 417, 419 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 10 of the Jharkhand Conduct of Examination Act, 2001 and the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the said offences against the petitioner vide order dated 01.12.2023. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is next submitted that the case of the prosecution is highly unbelievable. It is also next submitted that even if the allegation made against the petitioner are considered to be true, still neither the offence punishable under Section 417, 419 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 10 of the Jharkhand Conduct of Examination Act, 2001 is made out. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 2 Cr. M.P. No.1134 of 2024 5. Learned Addl.P.P. on the other hand opposes the prayer made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 01.12.2023 passed in connection with G.R. Case No.2297 of 2018 corresponding to Lower Bazar P.S. Case No.135 of 2018 and submits that there is a direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of indulging in the offence of impersonation and cheating by arranging someone else to appear for him in the preliminary examination and the mains examination of the said Jharkhand Combined Police; Sub-Inspector of Police Competitive Examination, 2017 and he succeeded in the said examination only because he arranged someone else to appear in the said preliminary and mains examination but when he appeared for the physical test, he cheated and his cheating by impersonation was detected as the biometric of the petitioner did not match with the biometrics of the person who appeared for the petitioner in the said competitive examination. It is next submitted that because of no coercive step/order passed by the court, there was some difficulty in collecting evidence during the investigation but still the police have found the materials during the investigation to submit the charge-sheet. It is also submitted that all the three offences i.e. offence punishable under Section 417/419 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 10 of the Jharkhand Conduct of Examination Act, 2001 is made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here 3 Cr. M.P. No.1134 of 2024 that the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating which are applicable to the facts of the present case are that (i) (ii) the petitioner deceived the personnel engaged for conducting the said combined competitive examination of Sub-Inspector of Police by ensuring that someone else appears on his behalf by way of impersonation; intentionally induced those persons to allow a candidate other than the petitioner to appear for the petitioner only because of such deception played on the part of the petitioner; and (iii) had such persons being not so deceived, they ought not have allowed anyone else than the petitioner to appear on behalf of the petitioner. So, in the considered opinion of this Court if it the allegation made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, then the offence punishable under Section 417, 419 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. 7. So far as the offence punishable under Section 10 of the Jharkhand Conduct of Examination Act, 2001 is concerned, the same provides for penalty for contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 to 9 of the said Act. Section 3 of the said Act envisages prohibition of use of unfair means or cheating at examination. Section 4 of the said Act prohibits any person to aid, abet or conspire in the use of unfair means. So, considering the allegations against the petitioner that the petitioner has adopted unfair means by ensuring someone else to appear for him in the said competitive examination and if the allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true, then the offence 4 Cr. M.P. No.1134 of 2024 punishable under Section 10 of the Jharkhand Conduct of Examination Act, 2001 is also made out against the petitioner. 8. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to allow the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 25th of July, 2024 AFR/ Saroj 5 Cr. M.P. No.1134 of 2024