Sidheshwar Mahto @ Siddhi @ Sandeep Kumar, aged about 41 years, Son of Baldev v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Arjun Mahto, Son of Late Bihari Mahto, resident
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1412 of 2023 Sidheshwar Mahto @ Siddhi @ Sandeep Kumar, aged about 41 years, Son of Baldev Prasad Mahto, resident of Mangargarhi (Chainpur), P.O. –Chainpur, P.S. –Madhuban, District –Giridih, Jharkhand. .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Arjun Mahto, Son of Late Bihari Mahto, resident of Village+Post – Khetko, P.O.+P.S. –Bagodar, District –Giridih, Jharkhand. …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P. No.2
Legal Reasoning
Judgment of this Court in the case of Dayashankar Ojha Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., in Cr.M.P. No. 1555 of 2021 dated 15.03.2024 wherein this Court relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ramesh Kumar Bung & Others Vs. State of Telangana & Another, passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 13762 of 2023 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 are mandatory. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the complaint is not supported by any affidavit which is a sine-qua-non for sending the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the complainant has not taken recourse to Section 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C. Hence, it is 3 Cr.M.P. No.1412 of 2023 submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 6. The learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that the ratio of Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (supra) is not at all applicable in this case as there is no application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant and the observations made in the case of Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (supra) was in respect of the application which is to be filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with a prayer for referring the complaint to the police for registration of F.I.R. and investigation. Further, the learned Spl. P.P. relies upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s. S.A.S. Infratech Private Limited Vs. State of Telangana and Another, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2574 of 2024 dated 14.05.2024, paragraph no. 9 of which reads as under:- “9. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has placed reliance of the decision of this Court in “Priyanka Srivastava And Another Versus State of Uttar Pradesh And Others” (2015) 6 SCC 287 to submit that the complaint filed by the appellant – complainant was not supported by an affidavit. In our opinion, the said observation has been made in the said case by way of abundant caution to see that frivolous complaints are avoided.” (Emphasis supplied) Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that observations made in the case of Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (supra) has been made in that case by way of abundant caution, to see the 4 Cr.M.P. No.1412 of 2023 frivolous complaints are avoided, hence rule of caution cannot be equated with rule of universal application. It is next submitted that unlike the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is not a case wherein illegal gratification was given by the victims. Hence, the ratio of the Judgment of Chelloor Mankkal Narayan Ittiravi Namboodiri Vs. State of Travancore- Cochin (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case. 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner cheated and thereby induced the complainant and other victims by making them part with huge amount of money, in order to arrange employment for them in foreign countries and arrange Air Tickets and Medical Visa. So the allegation against the petitioner if considered to be true in their entirety, no doubt constitutes the offence punishable under Section 419/420 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. So far as the Judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Chelloor Mankkal Narayan Ittiravi Namboodiri Vs. State of Travancore-Cochin (supra) is concerned, the same relates to facts where illegal gratification was paid by the victims which is not the fact of this case. Further, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is also not involved in this case so far. Under such circumstances of this case, the ratio of 5 Cr.M.P. No.1412 of 2023 Chelloor Mankkal Narayan Ittiravi Namboodiri Vs. State of Travancore-Cochin (supra) is not applicable in this case. 9. So far as the Judgment of Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (supra) is concerned, as has rightly been submitted by the learned Spl. P.P., in this case no application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the complainant. Moreover, as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s. S.A.S. Infratech Private Limited Vs. State of Telangana and Another (supra), the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (supra) are by way of abundant caution, in the case of Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (supra), even though the complaint was not supported by any affidavit, still the same was interfered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 10. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of cheating the complainant and the victims of huge amount of money by inducing them to part with the said money for arranging employment in the foreign countries and to purchase Air Tickets and meet the expenses of Medical Visa, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 21.02.2019, passed in Bagodar P.S. Case No. 71 of 2019 be quashed at the nascent stage. 6 Cr.M.P. No.1412 of 2023 11. 12. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.
Arguments
: Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. : None ….. 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 to quash the order dated 21.02.2019, passed by the learned SDJM, Giridih and also the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Bagodar P.S. Case No. 71 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Section 419/420/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons cheated and thereby induced the victims of the case including the complainant 1 Cr.M.P. No.1412 of 2023 to part with money to the extent of Rs.50,000/- each, from in total 47 victims for arranging jobs for them in foreign countries and that the amount cheated by the petitioner will cover the Airfare and the Medical Visa but the petitioner neither arranged the employment nor returned the money. The informant filed Complaint Case No. 364 of 2019 and the same was referred to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and basing upon the same, the F.I.R. of this case has been registered. In this context, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that investigation of the case is going on and charge sheet has not yet been submitted. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Geeta Devi & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., in Cr.M.P. No. 3334 of 2022 dated 27.09.2023 wherein the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chelloor Mankkal Narayan Ittiravi Namboodiri Vs. State of Travancore-Cochin, reported in (1952) 2 SCC 392 in which case, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the facts of that case, that it was not disputed that if the sum of Rs.23,100/- was paid by the P.W.1 to the appellant by way of illegal gratification to induce the latter to make an allotment of plot in his favour, there could be no question of entrustment in such payment and went on to hold that the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code 2 Cr.M.P. No.1412 of 2023 is not made out and in the facts before the Co-ordinate Bench where the complainant paid Rs.2,30,000/- to the accused persons of the case to procure employment by influencing high officials in a company, the Co-ordinate Bench held that there is no entrustment and set aside the order impugned before it and it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that; similarly there is no case of entrustment and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not involved in the F.I.R. registered in this case. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the
Decision
This criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 28th November, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 7 Cr.M.P. No.1412 of 2023