The High Court
Case Details
1 Cr.M.P. No. 1122 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1122 of 2019 Gyan Ratna … Petitioner -Versus- 1. 2. The State of Jharkhand Partha Biswas ----- … Opposite Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner For the State For O.P. No.2 -----
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Suvendu Jaipuriar, Advocate : Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, A.P.P. : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate ----- 07/07.02.2024 At the outset, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that opposite party no.2 has left for his heavenly abode and no one has been substituted before the learned Court as well as in the present petition. 2. In view of the submission of Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, the Court asks the learned counsel for the petitioner to move before the learned Court by way filing petition under Section 256 Cr.P.C., however, he has not accepted the said request of the Court and submits that this matter may kindly be decided on merit. In view of that, this petition is being heard on merit. 3. Heard Mr. Suvendu Jaipuriar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 4. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 29.03.2019 in connection with SC/ST Case No.52 of 2018, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. 2 Cr.M.P. No. 1122 of 2019 5. The complaint was lodged alleging therein that the accused had booked a flat No.2A on the second floor within the so constructed multi- storied building and had promised to pay his installments on time, which the accused person had failed to pay and, therefore, abiding by the terms and conditions of the agreement for sale dated 21.11.2014, the complainant was forced to cancel the the allotment of the said flat in favour the accused. It was further alleged that the complainant had tried several instances to refund the entire amount paid by the accused to the accused however the accused has been deliberately avoiding the same and has also filed a false and frivolous F.I.R. against the complainant being Bistupur P.S. Case No. 32/2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 335/2018 u/s 406 and 420 I.P.C., pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. It was also alleged that the flat No. 2A on the second floor standing on 7, Loyola School Area, Bistupur has been in the custody and ownership of the complainant. It was alleged that the accused person has been wanting to grab the said flat illegally and also on 06.05.2018 tried to break into the said flat, however, his efforts could not succeed. It was further alleged that the accused persons along with six of his henchmen at about 11.00 a.m. on 29.09.2018 forcefully and illegally entered into the premises of the complainant and when the household help namely, Kamala Mukhi and Kaushalya Kumhar tried to enquire, they pushed and abused them and illegally trespass into the said flat and cause harm to the complainant and his family and commit robbery of the assets of lying in the said flat. It was also alleged that hearing noise and cries, the complainant and his wife and others rushed to the second floor where they found that the accused person and his other associates were trying to break open the float an illegally 3 Cr.M.P. No. 1122 of 2019 trespass into the said flat, while Kamala Mukhi and Kaushalaya Kumhar were screaming for help. It was alleged that the complainant and his wife and others tried to stop the accused and his henchmen, but they started beating them and they molested the women including the domestic helps and they abused the domestic helps by their caste name and particularly they were calling Kamala Mukhi who was a Harijan, a Junglee and that get away from here she should stay in jungle. It was further alleged that the accused and his henchmen were adamant to illegally break and enter into the property and robe all the belongings of the complainant and the accused and his henchmen even went to the extent to try to disrobe the wife of the complainant and other female members. It was also alleged that in the meantime, police arrived and stopped the accused and his henchmen from illegally entering into the property and also saved the women from being molested and being grievously hurt from them. It was further alleged that on 29.10.2018 the complainant informed the Officer-in-Charge, Bistupur, but when no action was taken, the present complaint case has been lodged. 6. Mr. Suvendu Jaipuriar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that malafidely the present case has been registered against the petitioner and the learned Court has also taken cognizance without application of mind. He submits that the SC/ST Act is not made out in view of the allegation. He further submits that the petitioner has earlier lodged a case against the complainant and, thereafter, the present case has been lodged. He submits that the petitioner has paid sum of Rs.1 Crore and 62 Lakhs for purchasing a flat and he has paid Rs.87 Lakhs in cash. In this background, he submits that there are judgments that the High Court can quash the proceeding if 4 Cr.M.P. No. 1122 of 2019 the case is not made out. 7. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that nobody has been substituted till date in the present case on behalf of opposite party no.2 and he has already left for his heavenly abode. He further submits that if any proof is being claimed, that can only be appreciated by the learned Trial Court, if the trial is proceeded further. On these grounds, he submits that this is not a case to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. It appears from the contents of the complaint petition that there is some dispute with regard to a flat. In paragraph 3 of the complaint petition, it has been disclosed that the complainant had tried several instances to refund the entire amount paid by the accused to the accused, however, the accused has deliberately avoiding the same and has also filed a false and frivolous FIR against the complainant being Bistupur P.S. Case No.32/2018, corresponding to G.R. Case No.335/2018. The allegations are there of grabbing the flat by the petitioner in paragraph 5 of the complaint petition. The allegations are further there to enter forcefully into the premises of the complainant along with certain henchmen of the petitioner. The allegation of molesting the women including the domestic helps is also there. 9. On the query made by the learned Court in the solemn affirmation, the complainant has disclosed that the agreement was made for purchasing flat between the petitioner and the complainant on a sum of Rs.1 Crore and 4 Lakhs, whereas, only Rs.78,29,000/- was paid by the petitioner. On the query of the learned Court, the complainant has further disclosed that in view of non-payment of rest amount, the agreement was cancelled by the complainant. The allegation was further made that even the demand was 5 Cr.M.P. No. 1122 of 2019 made through e-mail to the effect that if the payment is not made, the agreement will be cancelled. Thus, there are case and counter case and there are disputed question of fact. In the solemn affirmation, the complainant has stated on the query of the Court, which has been noted hereinabove. 10. There are parameters of quashing the proceeding while applying power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. There is no doubt that if the case is malafidely lodged, the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised. However, it is further settled that the said power should be exercised with circumspection and with more care. 11. The question remains in this background, which is the subject matter of the complaint case, whether power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised or not for quashing the proceeding. The answer is simply no in view of the fact that there are disputed question of fact and even on the query by the Court, the complainant has stated, which has been noted hereinabove. 12. Further, opposite party no.2 has already left for his heavenly abode and nobody has been substituted as yet. 13. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, no case of interference is made out. 14. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 15. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, is vacated. Ajay/ (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)