The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1658 of 2020 1. Laxmi Kant Gupta, aged about 70 years, Son of Late Basudeo Gupta. 2. Rajesh Kumar, aged about 50 years, Son of Laxmi Kant Gupta. Both are resident of Routara, P.O.+P.S. –Godda, District –Godda. 3. Chandan Kumar Dutta, aged about 50 years, Son of Late Sachidanand Mandal, resident of Mohalla -Chaprasi Tola, Godda, P.O.+P.S. and District –Godda. 4. K.K. Roy @ Kishore Kumar, aged about 70 years, Son of Late Sansadhar Roy, Resident of RZ-69/10/11 Puran Nagal, Palan Colony, P.O.+P.S. –Palan, District –Palan, New Delhi, PIN-110045. .... Petitioners 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Deo Kumar Roy, Son of Late Dinbandhu Roy, resident of Mohalla- Versus Guljar Bagh, Godda, P.O.+P.S. and District –Godda. …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
found prima facie case for the said offences. It is next submitted that there is no allegation of cheating against the petitioners nor there is allegation of criminal intimidation or intention to insult with intent to provoke breach of peace. Hence, none of the offences for which the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case is made out against the petitioners even if the allegations against the petitioners are considered to be true. It is next submitted that the Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2019 involving the document said to be forged was decided in favour of the petitioner –Rajesh Kumar. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer 2 Cr.M.P. No.1658 of 2020 as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer made by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that the allegations made against the petitioners are sufficient to constitute the offence in respect of which the learned Magistrate has found prima-facie case. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code are (1) there is a fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him, (2) (a) the person so induced should be intentionally induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or (b) the person so induced to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and (c) in case covered by second part of clause (a), the act or omission should be one which caused or was likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind or property as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of R.S. Nayak vs. A.R. Antulay reported in (1986) 2 SCC 716. 7. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of making any inducement to 3 Cr.M.P. No.1658 of 2020 anybody let alone fraudulent or dishonest inducement. In the absence of this essential ingredient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court is of the considered view that even if the allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 8. So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, it is appropriate to refer to the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207, paragraph nos. 24 and 25 of which reads as under :- “24. Now, we revert back to the allegations in the complaint against the appellant. The allegation is that the appellant with two or three other unknown persons, one of whom was holding a revolver, came to the complainant’s house and abused him in filthy language and attempted to assault him and when some neighbours arrived there the appellant and the other persons accompanying him fled the spot. The above allegation taking on its face value does not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 as has been enumerated by this Court in the above two judgments. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The mere allegation that the appellant came and abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients as laid down in para 13 of the judgment of this Court in Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] . 25. Now, reverting back to Section 506, which is offence of criminal intimidation, the principles laid down by Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] has also to be applied when question of finding out as to whether the ingredients of offence are made or not. Here, the only allegation is that the appellant abused the complainant. For proving an offence under Section 506 IPC, what are the 4 Cr.M.P. No.1658 of 2020 ingredients which have to be proved by the prosecution? Ratanlal & Dhirajlal on Law of Crimes, 27th Edn. with regard to proof of offence states the following: “… The prosecution must prove: (i) That the accused threatened some person. (ii) That such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of someone in whom he was interested; (iii) That he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding execution such the of threat.” A plain reading of the allegations in the complaint does not satisfy all the ingredients as noticed above.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of having intentionally insulted the complainant nor there is any allegation that the petitioners provoked the complainant intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation would cause him to break public peace and in the absence of any material regarding these essential ingredients, this Court is of the considered view that the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners even if the allegations made in the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and statement of the inquiry witnesses are treated to be true in their entirety. 10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no allegation against the petitioners of giving any threat with intent to cause alarm to the complainant or to cause the complainant to do any act 5 Cr.M.P. No.1658 of 2020 which he was not legally bound to do or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do; as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat rather it is the case of the complainant that on the basis of the documents that is the entry made in the revenue record and the sale deed, they pressurized the complainant to vacate the dwelling house. 11. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true, still the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out, against the petitioners. 12. Because of the discussions made above, as none of the offences in respect of which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has found prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, hence this court is of the considered view, that continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount of abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the order dated 16.01.2020 passed in Complaint Case No. 759 of 2014 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 420/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered for issuance of summons be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 6 Cr.M.P. No.1658 of 2020 13. Accordingly, the order dated 16.01.2020 passed in Complaint Case No. 759 of 2014 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 420/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered for issuance of summons is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. 14. This criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 30th August, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 7 Cr.M.P. No.1658 of 2020
Arguments
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate : Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, Addl. P.P. : Mrs. Neeta Krishna, Advocate : Mr. Pratyush, Advocate ….. 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 16.01.2020 passed in Complaint Case No. 759 of 2014 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda has found prima facie case for the offences 1 Cr.M.P. No.1658 of 2020 3. 4. punishable under Section 420/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered for issuance of summons. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners have created a forged sale deed and got their names mutated and are pressurizing the complainant to vacate the house property. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant first lodged Godda (Town) P.S. Case No. 771 of 2013 and in the same after due investigation police found the allegations to be not true and after that the complainant filed protest-cum-complaint petition which was treated as Complaint Case. On the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has