Rajesh Singh @ Rajesh Kr. Singh, s/o- Ramanand Singh, aged about 36 years, Finance v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Hari Prasad Yadav s/o Mundrika Prasad Yadav, aged
Case Details
1 Cr.M.P. No.1405 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1405 of 2018 Rajesh Singh @ Rajesh Kr. Singh, s/o- Ramanand Singh, aged about 36 years, Finance Manager, R/o TATA Finance, Ashok Nagar, Dhanbad, P.O.- Dhansar, P.S. Dhansar, Dist. Dhanbad, presently working as State Head-SLCV, (Sales) at TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD. Having office at Hans Stoher Road, TELCO Town, Ground Floor, P.O. & P.S.- Telco Town, Jamshedpur- 831004 .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Hari Prasad Yadav s/o Mundrika Prasad Yadav, aged about 48 years, R/o Sakim Panchmohli, P.O.- Kumardhubi & P.S.- Chirkunda, Dist. Dhanbad …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of Indian Penal Code and ordered issue for summons against the petitioner and the co-accused persons. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the employee of TATA Motors Finance Limited. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioner and the complainant has defaulted in repaying the loan-cum-hypothecation-cum-guarantee agreement under which the vehicle was produced by him. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anup Sarmah vs. Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors. reported in (2013) 1 SCC 400, paragraph no.7 of which reads as under:- “7. In view of the above, the law can be summarised that in an agreement of hire purchase, the purchaser remains merely a trustee/bailee on behalf of the financier/financial institution and ownership remains with the latter. Thus, in case the vehicle is seized by the financier, no criminal action can be taken against him as he is repossessing the goods owned by him.” 3 Cr.M.P. No.1405 of 2018 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the occurrence took place in connection with repossession of the goods owned by the company of the petitioner; hence, no offence is made out against the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sardar Trilok Singh & Ors. vs. Satya Deo Tripathi reported in (1979) 4 SCC 396 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India examined the matter of repossession by the financer and as the dispute involved was purely civil in nature even if the allegation made by the complainant were substantially correct, hence, it was observed that, no offence punishable under Section 395, 468, 465, 471, 412, 120B/34 of Indian Penal Code is made out. 8. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the complaint there is no specific allegation against the petitioner and there are also contradictions in the statement of inquiry witnesses. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 2594 of 2015, corresponding to T.R. No. 850 of 2017 and order dated 05.07.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad be quashed and set aside. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the entire criminal 4 Cr.M.P. No.1405 of 2018 proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 2594 of 2015, corresponding to T.R. No. 850 of 2017 and order dated 05.07.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad and submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of pushing and intentionally insulting the complainant and it has got no connection with repossession of the vehicle and it is a separate and independent occurrence. It is then submitted by learned Addl. P.P. that the petitioner has no right to cause simple hurt or intentionally insult the complainant with intent to provoke breach of peace hence, the ratio of Anup Sarmah vs. Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors. (supra) and Sardar Trilok Singh & Ors. vs. Satya Deo Tripathi (supra) is not applicable in this case. It is next submitted by the learned Addl. P.P. that this Court, in exercise of the jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot consider the defence of the petitioner that the allegation are false by; conducting a mini trial. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. 10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, this Court finds that there is specific and direct allegation against the petitioner of causing simple hurt and intentionally insulting the complainant with an intent to provoke breach of peace and hence, this Court does not find any illegality in the order of the learned Magistrate in finding prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of Indian Penal Code. 5 Cr.M.P. No.1405 of 2018 11. So far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, no doubt they are the settled principle of law but in this case, the order by which prima facie case against the petitioner was found by the learned Magistrate has got nothing to do with any act of repossession of any article. Hence, the ratio of the said judgments is not applicable in the facts of the case. 12. It is a settled principle of law that a legitimate prosecution cannot be stifled by the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as has been held in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr. )and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781. 13. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 3rd August, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Arguments
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners For the State : Mr. Ashish Jha, Advocate : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Addl. P.P. ….. By the Court:- 1. 2. Heard the parties. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 2594 of 2015, corresponding to T.R. No. 850 of 2017 and also the order dated 05.07.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad whereby and where under, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad has taken 2 Cr.M.P. No.1405 of 2018 cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner caused simple hurt to the complainant by pushing him and intentionally insulting him with intent to provoke breach of peace. 4. The petitioner is the finance manager of the finance company; taking finance from which company, the complainant purchased a vehicle from the co-accused persons. 5. Upon the complaint being filed, the learned Magistrate found