The High Court
Case Details
Cr. M.P. No.1736 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1736 of 2023 ------ 1. Sarita Devi, Aged about 32 years, wife of Sundar Lal Yadav, Resident of Kathara More, Boriya Uttari, P.O. Kathara, P.S. Bokaro Thermal, District- Bokaro. 2. Rahul Yadav @ Rahul Kumar Yadav, Aged about 20 years, son of Lekhnath Yadav @ Loknath Yadav, Resident of Kamal Tola Bandh Basti, Kathara, P.O. Kathara, P.S. Gomia, District- Bokaro. 3. Govind Yadav, Aged about 46 years, son of late Dukhan Yadav, Resident of Bandh Basti, Yadav Tola, P.O. Kathara, P.S. Gomia, District- Bokaro. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand
Legal Reasoning
of the case. Certainly, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 4 Cr. M.P. No.1736 of 2023 of Cr.P.C. cannot conduct a mini trial to arrive at the veracity of the allegations made against the petitioners. It is a settled principle of law that the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should not stifle a legitimate prosecution as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781. 7. Because of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to quash the order dated 18.01.2023 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in C.P. Case No.674 of 2018 (arising out of BTPS Case No.137 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.1166 of 2017 in which Final Report dated 31.01.2018 has been submitted). 8. Accordingly, the prayer to quash the order dated 18.01.2023 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in C.P. Case No.674 of 2018 (arising out of BTPS Case No.137 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.1166 of 2017 in which Final Report dated 31.01.2018 has been submitted) is rejected. 9. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, stands rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 27th of September, 2023 AFR/ Animesh 5
Arguments
2. Renuka Devi wife of Sri Rabindra Barnwal, Resident of Quarter No. 1/B-181, Kathara Hospital Colony, P.O. Kathara, P.S. Bokaro Thermal, District- Bokaro … Opposite Parties For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No.2 ------ : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. : Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 18.01.2023 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in C.P. Case No.674 of 2018 (arising out of BTPS Case No.137 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.1166 of 2017 in which Final Report dated 31.01.2018 has been submitted) whereby 1 Cr. M.P. No.1736 of 2023 cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 379, 427/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken inter alia against the petitioners upon protest petition filed the informant/opposite party No.2. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant/informant/opposite party No.2 is the owner of a shop. On 16.12.2017 at about 4:30 pm, the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention committed theft and mischief causing huge loss to the complainant/informant/opposite party No.2. There is specific allegation against the petitioner No.1 that she committed theft of Rs.12,000/- kept in the cash counter of the shop. The specific allegation against the petitioner No.2 is that he thrashed the idol of goddess Lakshmi on the ground by which the said idol broke down and the specific allegation against the petitioner No.3 is that he committed theft of Rs.20,000/- from the pocket of the husband of the complainant/informant/opposite party No.2. Besides there is general allegation against the petitioners of having caused damage to the shop of the complainant/informant/opposite party No.2. On the basis of the written report lodged by the complainant/informant/opposite party No.2, Bokaro Thermal P.S. Case No.137 of 2017 was registered. Police after investigation of the case submitted Final Form by mentioning that the fact is not true. Upon that the complainant/informant/opposite party No.2 filed a protest petition which was registered as Complaint Case No.674 of 2018 in which the learned Magistrate recorded the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant/informant/opposite party No.2 and also examined three other witnesses and after considering the materials in the record, the learned S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat found prima facie materials to proceed inter alia against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under 2 Cr. M.P. No.1736 of 2023 Sections 379, 427/34 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered for issue of summons to them. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the place of occurrence- shop No.1 of cooperative market has been allotted to the co-accused Sundar Lal Yadav by C.C.L Kathara Area but prior to such allotment the said shop was allotted in the name of the husband of the complainant/informant/opposite party No.2 but such allotment was cancelled by the C.C.L. Kathara Area on 23.11.2005. The earlier allottee-husband of the complainant/informant/ opposite party No.2 does not want to vacate the said shop. On the date of alleged occurrence i.e. on 16.12.2017 an application was given by co-accused Sundar Lal Yadav to the officer Incharge of the Bokaro Therma Police Station mentioning therein that the complainant/informant/opposite party No.2 and her family members forcibly want to enter into the shop and threatened to file a case, hence, this false case has been foisted against the petitioners. It is then submitted that the husband of the complainant/informant/opposite party No.2 and the complainant/informant/opposite party No.2 who were earlier allotted the shop registered the possession of the co-accused Sundar Lal Yadav and forcibly entered into the shop in question and the Protest-cum-Complaint is made out of grudge and malice against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 18.01.2023 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in C.P. Case No.674 of 2018 (arising out of BTPS Case No.137 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.1166 of 2017 in which Final Report dated 31.01.2018 has been submitted), be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer to quash the order dated 3 Cr. M.P. No.1736 of 2023 18.01.2023 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in C.P. Case No.674 of 2018 (arising out of BTPS Case No.137 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.1166 of 2017 in which Final Report dated 31.01.2018 has been submitted) and submit that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of having; in furtherance of common intention committed the offence of theft and mischief causing loss of more than Rs.50,000/-. It is next submitted that the only ground that the petitioners agitated for quashing the order taking cognizance is that the shop was allotted in favour of the co-accused Sundar Lal Yadav. It is next submitted that the same may be at best a defence of the petitioners which can be agitated at the appropriate stage during the trial but certainly the same is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding by holding a mini trial in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by this Court. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that there is specific allegation against the petitioner Nos.1 and 3 of having committed theft as already indicated above and there is specific allegation against the petitioner No.2 of committing mischief and causing a loss and damage to the amount of more than Rs.50/-. As has rightly been submitted by the learned P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 that the only ground agitated by the petitioners for quashing the order taking cognizance is that the allegation against the petitioners is false. The veracity of the case of the prosecution can only be tested in a full dress trial