The High Court
Case Details
1 Cr.M.P. No. 3147 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3147 of 2013 1. Kapildeo Singh 2. Rohit Kumar -Versus- 1. 2. State of Jharkhand Ashok Kumar Gahlot @ Paswan ----- … Petitioners … Opposite Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners For the State For O.P. No.2 -----
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Tapas Roy, A.P.P. : None ----- 05/06.07.2023 Notice upon opposite party no.2 has been effected. Opposite party no.2 was not present on 26.02.2020 and identical was the situation on 17.05.2023 and on that day, the matter was adjourned with a view to provide one more opportunity to opposite party no.2. 2. Today when the matter was taken up, on repeated calls nobody has responded on behalf of opposite party no.2. 3. Accordingly, this matter is being heard in absence of opposite party no.2. 4. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Tapas Roy, learned counsel for the State. 5. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 05.09.2013 in C.P. Case No.1863/2013, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 6. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that in the month of November 2007, the petitioner no.1 and 2 came to the opposite party no.2 2 Cr.M.P. No. 3147 of 2013 with proposal to enter into development agreement for construction of multi storied building on their land situated at Mauza Morabadi, Thana Bariatu, Thana No. 192 under Khata No. 170, M.S.Plot No. 46, Sub Plot No. 46/A, ad-measuring around 8 katha 48 sq.ft. recorded in the name of petitioner no.1. After perusal of all the documents, the opposite party no.2 agreed to enter into an agreement with the petitioners herein. On 11.10.2007, the petitioner no.1 entered into a Development Agreement with opposite party no.2 and as per which and as per RRDA plan a four storied building was to be constructed over the aforesaid land containing 12 flats as per RRDA Sanction Plan. On 04.03.2008, a Power of Attorney was executed by the petitioner no.1 in favour of the opposite party no. 2 after accepting consideration amount of Rs.11,50,000/- towards advance payment for the entire amount payable to the petitioner no.1. The R.R.D.A. passed the plan for construction of the building on the aforesaid land on 2.9.2008 and thereafter the opposite party no.2 started the construction activities. It was further alleged that when the building was at its final stage, the petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 along with one Rajeev Singh came to the construction site and demanded for 50% of the construction cost instead of earlier agreed 35% and when the complainant/opposite party no.2 did not agree to the aforesaid demand of the petitioners, the petitioners threatened him to cancel the power of attorney executed in his favour. It was also alleged that on 26.10.2012, the petitioners along with some armed miscreants came to the construction site and took over the entire building under construction and locked the main gate with their own lock and key. However, when the opposite party no.2 wanted to settle the 3 Cr.M.P. No. 3147 of 2013 matter, the petitioners agreed to have a discussion on the same on 21.07.2013. On 21.7.2013, the complainant/opposite party no.2 went to the construction site, and found that RCC Bars, Grill, Cement, Sanitary Pipes, Electrical Equipments, Pan, Mixture Machine, Generator, Doors amounting to around Rs.5 lakhs have been made to disappear and the petitioners were altering the designs of the flats by demolishing them as per their own will. When the complainant/opposite party no.2 approached the petitioners, the petitioners along with one Rajeev Singh have abused the complainant/ opposite party no.2 in a filthy manner and using foul words. However, on intervention by some known persons of the area, the complainant/opposite party no.2 was saved and went back to his home. The complainant/ opposite party no.2 has already invested more than 2.5 crores of his own and after obtaining loan from the banks into the said property and the petitioners have now taken over the entire building and not given the share of the opposite party no.2 to him. However, on 14.10.2012 the petitioner no.1 lodged an FIR with the Bariatu Police Station with false allegation. The petitioners in this manner induced the opposite party no.2 to invest a huge sum into the project and thereafter just before it got finished forcefully on 26.10.2012 took over the property with the help of anti-social elements. 7. At the outset, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of this petition, petitioner no.1 has left for his heavenly abode in December, 2013 and in that view of the matter, he confines his prayer for petitioner no.2 only. 8. In view of such submission, let the name of petitioner no.1 be deleted from the array of the petitioners. 4 Cr.M.P. No. 3147 of 2013 9. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant is a builder and the petitioners are owner of the land, in question, for which, they have entered into an agreement for development of the said land. He further submits that petitioner no.1 has earlier lodged FIR being Bariatu P.S. Case No.243 of 2012 against the opposite party no.2 in which the police has submitted charge-sheet against opposite party no.2. He also submits that opposite party no.2 moved before this Court in Cr.M.P. No.2807/2012 for quashing of the said FIR, which was dismissed vide order dated 06.03.2013. He further submits that thereafter only to make pressure upon the petitioners, opposite party no.2 has filed the present case against the petitioners on 29.07.2013. He submits that at best it can be a case of civil nature, however, criminal colour has been given. He submits that there is no criminality and this Court may quash the entire criminal proceeding considering that it is a case of counter blast. To buttress his argument, he relied upon the judgment passed in Krishna Lal Chawla and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another; [(2021) 5 SCC 435]. 10. Paragraphs 15, 21, 22 and 24 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow: “15.The sum of the above circumstances and precedents leads us to what we see as an inevitable conclusion. That Respondent 2's institution of the fresh complaint case in 2018 under Section 200 CrPC was a concerted effort to mislead the Magistrate with the oblique motive of harassing the appellants with a frivolous and vexatious case against them. That the same was a counterblast to the charge-sheet dated 17-9-2017 filed against Respondent 2 and his wife in the case registered by the appellant. The history of ill will and malice between the parties leads further credence to Respondent 2's motivations for tying up the appellants in frivolous and harrowing criminal litigation, long years after the alleged incident. Respondent 2's conduct in filing a delayed complaint case, suppressing material facts, and utilising fresh proceedings to materially 5 Cr.M.P. No. 3147 of 2013 improve on his earlier version, in totality, amounts to gross abuse of the process of court. 21. All of this leads to one inescapable conclusion. That the trial Judge has a duty under the Constitution and the CrPC, to identify and dispose of frivolous litigation at an early stage by exercising, substantially and to the fullest extent, the powers conferred on him. This Court has earlier emphasised on the high degree of responsibility shouldered by the trial Judges in All India Judges' Assn. (1) v. Union of India [All India Judges' Assn. (1) v. Union of India, (1992) 1 SCC 119 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 9] . Ranganath Misra, C.J. (as he was then) writing for himself and two others stated: (SCC p. 134, para 42) “42. The trial Judge is the kingpin in the hierarchical system of administration of justice. He directly comes in contact with the litigant during the proceedings in Court. On him lies the responsibility of building up of the case appropriately and on his understanding of the matter the cause of justice is first answered. The personality, knowledge, judicial restraint, capacity to maintain dignity are the additional aspects which go into making the Court's functioning successful.” 22. Frivolous litigation should not become the order of the day in India. From misusing the public interest litigation jurisdiction of the Indian courts to abusing the criminal procedure for harassing their adversaries, the justice delivery system should not be used as a tool to fulfil personal vendetta. The Indian judiciary has taken cognizance of this issue. In 2014, this Court elucidated as follows, the plight of a litigant caught in the cobweb of frivolous proceedings in Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India [Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 470 : (2014) 4 SCC (Civ) 424 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 712] : (SCC p. 642, para 191) “191. … One needs to keep in mind, that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side, of every irresponsible and senseless claim. He suffers long drawn anxious periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending, without any fault on his part. He pays for the litigation, from out of his savings (or out of his borrowings), worrying that the other side may trick him into defeat, for no fault of his. He spends invaluable time briefing counsel and preparing them for his claim. Time which he should have spent at work, or with his family, is lost, for no fault of his.” While the Court's ruling pertained to civil proceedings, these observations ring true for the criminal justice machinery as well. We note, with regret, that 7 years hence, and there has still been no reduction in such plight. A falsely accused person not only suffers monetary damages but is exposed to disrepute and stigma from society. While running from pillar to post to find a lawyer to represent his case and arranging finances to defend himself before the court of law, he loses a part of himself. 24. As recorded by us above, the present controversy poses a typical example of frivolous litigants abusing court process to 6 Cr.M.P. No. 3147 of 2013 achieve their mischievous ends. In the case before us, the Magistrate was aware of the significant delay in the filing of private complaint by Respondent 2, and of the material improvements from the earlier NCR No. 158 of 2012 which were made in the private complaint. It was incumbent on the Magistrate to examine any possibility of abuse of process of the court, make further enquiries, and dismiss the frivolous complaint at the outset after judicial application of mind.” 11. Relying on the said judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. 12. Mr. Tapas Roy, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned court has taken cognizance in view of the complaint made therein. 13. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on the record and finds that admittedly earlier petitioner no.1 lodged Bariatu P.S. Case No.243 of 2012 which was challenged by opposite party no.2 in Cr.M.P. No.2807 of 2012. The said Cr.M.P. was dismissed vide order dated 06.03.2013 and thereafter, the present complaint case has been filed by the opposite party no.2 on 29.07.2013. Further the Court finds that there is no statement in the complaint petition that there was such heinous crime on behalf of the petitioners and why the same was not communicated to the police. The said complaint is also not affidavited. 14. It is well-settled that only for breach of contract, criminality cannot be made out. Further, assuming that the allegations made in the complaint are true, criminality is not made out as the entire case is based on development agreement and power of attorney. The case of the petitioner is fully covered in light of the judgment passed in Krishna Lal Chawla (supra). Further, by way of suppressing the Bariatu P.S. Case No.243/2012, the present complaint case has been filed by opposite party no.2. 7 Cr.M.P. No. 3147 of 2013 15.
Decision
In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 05.09.2013 in C.P. Case No.1863/2013, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi is quashed. 16. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of. Ajay/ (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)