The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1846 of 2011 Tirthraj Himmatsinghka @ Tirth Raj Himmat Singh The State of Jharkhand Versus --------- ….. Petitioner ….. Opp. Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioner For the State -------- : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate. Mr. P.A.N. Roy, Advocate. Mrs. Pragati Prasad, Advocate. : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. --------- Order No. 05/Dated: 19th April, 2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present application has been filed for recalling the order
Legal Reasoning
dated 07.12.2007 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 252 of 2007 in pursuance to the liberty given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1696 of 2008 along with Criminal Appeal No. 1413 and 1415 of 2004. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this application has been filed in pursuance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No. 1696 of 2008 dated 29th August, 2011, whereby and whereunder the petitioners have been given liberty to approach the High Court with a suitable application. 4. It is submitted that petitioner was implicated by the Town Police, Deoghar in G.R. No. 908 of 1996, T.R. No. 22 of 2007 under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the I.P.C. and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against all the accused vide order dated 17th February, 1998 and after hearing, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence vide order dated 5th June, 1998. The petitioner has filed discharge petition dated 11th P a g e 1 | 6 August, 2005 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar, but the same was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed Criminal Revision before this Hon’ble Court, which was also dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 7th December, 2007. Thereafter, petitioner preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Apex Court being Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No. 1696 of 2008, which was heard along with Criminal Appeal Nos. 1413 and 1415 of 2004, which were dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court with a suitable application. 5. It is further submitted that as per the F.I.R., the allegation is that Truck bearing registration no. BEK 9455 was financed under a Hire Purchase Agreement by the Ideal Auto Credit Pvt. Ltd., of which the petitioner is a Director. The real fact is that the said truck i.e. BEK 9455 has never been financed under Hire Purchase Agreement to the complainant Sunil Kumar and there is no iota of paper to show that the said truck was financed under Hire Purchase Agreement to said Sunil Kumar, as such, the very foundation of the FIR is not sustainable and does not constitute any offence under the aforesaid Sections. 6. The true fact is that the said truck BEK 9455 was given as security to the Hire Purchase Agreement against loan given to another Truck bearing registration no. BR 36-0321. Therefore, no element of cheating and forgery is applicable in the instant case and the prosecution of petitioner is liable to be quashed. The allegations levelled in the FIR against the petitioner is beyond imagination and it has been filed in order to put pressure for settlement of the dues in respect of Truck No. BR 36-0321. 7. An interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 1609 of 2024 dated 13.02.2024 is also filed by the petitioner for addition of following prayer in the original petition:- P a g e 2 | 6 1(a) For quashing the entire criminal prosecution pending against the petitioner vide T.R. No. 22 of 2007, arising out of Deoghar (T) P.S. Case No. 384 of 1996, corresponding to G.R. No. 908 of 1996, under Sections 406/34, 420/34, 465/34, 467/34, 368/34, 471/34 of the I.P.C. pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar and in the prayer portion of the petition the following prayer may be added:- To quash the entire criminal prosecution pending against the petitioner vide T.R. No. 22 of 2007, arising out of Deoghar (T) P.S. Case No. 384 of 1996, corresponding to G.R. No. 908 of 1996 under Sections 406/34, 420/34, 465/34, 467/34, 468/34, 471/34 of the I.P.C., pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar. AND/OR Pass such other order or orders as your Lordship may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. It is further submitted that through the interlocutory application i.e I.A. No. 5268 of 2023 dated 19.06.2023, prayer has been made for passing an order for stay of the further proceeding of the case in connection with Deoghar P.S. Case No. 384/1996 (G.R. No. 384 of 1996) corresponding to T.R. No. 22 of 2007, pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Deoghar or in alternative, for fixing an early date of hearing of this case. 9. It is extraneously argued that the petitioner is undergoing agony of trial in this case since 1999, but up till now no witness has been examined by the prosecution and petitioner is being deprived of his P a g e 3 | 6 valuable right of speedy trial of the case. Hence, appropriate order(s) may be passed. 10. Learned APP appearing for the State has also fairly admitted for early hearing of this case as the trial of the instant case is pending before the concerned trial court. 11. I have perused the record of the case and materials available on record and a report was also called for from the concerned trial court regarding progress of the trial of the case. A report has been submitted vide Letter No. 40 dated 03.04.2024 by the concerned trial court. 12. It appears that the main criminal revision filed by the petitioner against the rejection of his application by the concerned trial court for
Decision
discharge was heard and disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.12.2007. 13. After considering the points raised on behalf of the petitioner, the criminal revision was dismissed. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before Hon’ble Apex Court vide S.L.P. (Crl) No. 1696 of 2008, which was also disposed of on 29.08.2011 with following order:- “Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner states that certain points have not been referred to in the impugned judgment of the High Court. The special leave petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court with a suitable application and raise that points, and, if he does so, the High Court may deal with it in accordance with law.” 14. In course of hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, it was pointed out that the charges has been framed against the accused persons after rejection of the discharge petition and trial has commenced. Case is pending for prosecution evidence, but after lapse of more than 15 years not a single witness has been examined. P a g e 4 | 6 Therefore, a report was called for from the concerned trial court, which is available on record. From perusal of which, it appears that in the instant case, several miscellaneous petitions were filed separately regarding discharge of accused persons in some cases, there was order staying the further proceedings of the case and the matter also went up to Hon’ble Apex Court. Ultimately, in view of order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing Case (2020), the learned trial court proceeded further in the case. 15. It is further apprised by the learned trial court that since the case record was taken to the stage of evidence and since 26.08.2022, on several dates, process has been issued against the prosecution witnesses and the court has given last chance to prosecution to adduce Evidence, if any by the next date positively, i.e. on 10.04.2024. Hence, the court is taking all steps for the speedy trial of the case. 16. In the above-mentioned factual aspects as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that all the probable defence has been pleaded, which are subject matter of trial of the case and is required to be established by adducing defence evidence or in any other manner. It is also obvious that after rejection of discharge application, the learned trial court has proceeded in the matter and after framing of charges, case is proceeding for prosecution evidence, although inordinate delay has occurred in this case due to miscellaneous applications filed by different litigants in this case. 17. Considering the report submitted by the concerned trial court and sincere efforts made in this case, I do not find any fresh material to entertain this miscellaneous petition, which stands dismissed and petitioner is at liberty to raise all these points before the trial court. 18. Considering the long delay in conclusion of trial, it is appropriate to direct the concerned trial court to conclude the trial P a g e 5 | 6 preferably within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and prosecution is also directed to produce all witnesses which he desires to examine within the aforesaid period. 19. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of along with aforesaid interlocutory applications i.e. I.A. No. 1609 of 2024 and I.A. No. 5268 of 2023. 20. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned court. Sunil/ (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) P a g e 6 | 6