Suman Gupta v. The State of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. P.K. Chatterjee, learned Spl.P.P. for the State and Mr. P.K. Deomani, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 23.03.2013, by which, cognizance for the offence under Sections 323, 347, 506, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners, in connection with C.P. Case No. 991 of 2010, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad.

3. The complaint case was filed by the O.P. No. 2 alleging therein that earlier a C.P. Case No. 947/2010 was filed by the complainant against these accused which was published in newspaper. When these accused persons came to know about the said case, all accused along with other police officers of different police stations in three vehicles (two Jeeps and one Ambassador Car) came to the complainant. The accused No.1 remained in the car but other entered in the place of occurrence and accused Nos. 2 and 3 caught hold and started assaulting him and brought him to the quarter of the accused No.2, where he was wrongfully confined and put pressure upon him to withdraw the earlier C.P. Case. The accused No.1 also came later on and assaulted him and further threatened to kill and implicate the entire family in false case. When the complainant denied, then again he was assaulted and threatened to kill him by all accused. Anyhow the complainant gave them false assurance to withdraw the earlier case and managed to get rid of from them. The complainant narrated the entire story to the witnesses and others and became apprehensive and kept silent which has caused the delay in filing this case. -2- Cr.M.P. No. 2501 of 2013

4. In view of the above complaint, the learned court has examined the complainant and his witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and by order dated 23.03.02013 has taken the cognizance against the petitioners under the aforementioned sections of the IPC.

5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 1 was Superintendent of Police at the relevant point of time at Dhanbad, petitioner No. 2 was the Officer- in-Charge of Chirkunda Police Station and petitioner No. 3 was Officer-in- Charge of Govindpur Police Station. He submits that all these petitioners have started drive against the family members of the complainant, who are indulged in anti-social activities including illegal trade of coal. He further submits that earlier one complaint case, being Complaint Case No. 947 of 2010 was filed by the complainant, alleging that the petitioners have assaulted and demanded money. He further submits that in the present complaint, allegation has been made that for withdrawal of C.P. Case No. 947 of 2010, the threatening was given by the petitioners. He further submits that the complaint Case No. 947 of 2010 has already been dismissed by the learned court, vide order dated 04.02.2011, and the said order was challenged before the revisional court in Criminal Revision No. 47 of 2011, which was also dismissed by judgment dated 25.03.2011 and against the criminal revision order, the O.P. No. 2 has moved before this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 563 of 2011 and the said petition was also dismissed on 01.11.2018.

6. On these backgrounds, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that two of the uncles of O.P. No. 2 are the hardened criminals and they have set up the O.P. No. 2 to file a false case against the petitioners, who were discharging their official duty. He further submits that in view of above, Section 197 Cr.P.C. is attracted as the petitioners are protected under that Section and to allow to continue the proceedings against the petitioners will amount to an abuse of the process of law.

7. Mr. P.K. Deomani, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that it is a fact that the petitioners have threatened the O.P. No. 2 and his uncles are far related with O.P. No. 2 and on the false pretext, they have tried to assault the O.P. No. 2 that’s why the complaint case has been filed. He further submits that the first case was filed by the O.P. No. 2 was dismissed for default and the O.P. No. 2 has no criminal antecedent in any manner. On these grounds, learned counsel submits that there are allegations against the petitioners, therefore, the criminal proceedings -3- Cr.M.P. No. 2501 of 2013 against them may not be quashed.

8. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the learned court after considering the complaint petition and also considering the enquiry witness has taken the cognizance against the petitioners.

9. In view of such submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the court has gone through the materials on record and finds that admittedly earlier a complaint case was filed against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 947 of 2010 and by order dated 04.08.2011, the said complaint was dismissed by the learned court, which was challenged by the O.P. No. 2 in Criminal Revision No. 47 of 2011, which was also dismissed by judgment dated 25.03.2011 by the learned revisional court and against the criminal revision order, the O.P. No. 2 has moved before this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 563 of 2011 and the said petition was also dismissed on 01.11.2018 and the allegation in this case is for withdrawal of that case, the petitioners have assaulted and threatened the O.P. No. 2. It is very strange that for withdrawal of Complaint Case No. 947 of 2010, the petitioners have assaulted and threatened the O.P. No. 2, however, the O.P. No. 2 has not taken proper steps in the earlier case, which was dismissed and the said order was affirmed up to the High Court.

10. Prima facie, it is crystal clear that in malicious way, the present complaint case has been filed by the O.P. No. 2. If the O.P. No. 2 is sincere about the complaint case No. 947 of 2010, in spite of the opportunity provided to the O.P. No. 2 by the learned court, he has not taken steps for producing the witness, rather he has earlier taken two months time for adducing the evidence.

11. In the above factual backgrounds, it is crystal clear that maliciously against these petitioners, the present complaint has been filed by the O.P. No. 2. In the pivotal issue, the applicability of Section 197 Cr.P.C. needs careful consideration. In Bakhshish Singh Brar Versus Gurmej Kaur, reported in (1987) 4 SCC 663, while emphasizing on the balance between protection to the officers and the protection to the citizens and that judgment was also considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjani Kumar Versus State of Bihar & Anr., reported in (2008) 5 SCC 248, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-13 has observed as follows:- “13. “7. The pivotal issue [i.e. applicability of -4- Cr.M.P. No. 2501 of 2013 the Code] needs