Mamata Mahato, aged about 54 years, W/o Debdas Mahato, R/o Chatro, P.O. –Kokpara, P.S v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Suraj Kumar Das, aged about 39 years, D/o
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1524 of 2021 Mamata Mahato, aged about 54 years, W/o Debdas Mahato, R/o Chatro, P.O. –Kokpara, P.S. –Dhalbhumgarh, District –East Singhbhum and presently residing at Raghunathpur, P.O. –Adardih, P.S. –Nimdih, District –Seraikella –Kharsawan -832401. .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Suraj Kumar Das, aged about 39 years, D/o Laxmi Kant Das, R/o – Raghunathpur, P.O. –Adardih, P.S. –Nimdih, District –Seraikella – Kharsawan -832401. 3. Superintendent of Police, Seraikella-Kharsawan, Collectorate Building, P.O. & P.S. –Seraikella, District –Seraikella –Kharsawan. 4. Rash Bihari Yadav, S/o Not Known, A.S.I.–cum-Investigation Officer, Nimdih P.S. Case No. 65/20, R/o Nimdih Police Station, P.O. & P.S. –Nimdih, Seraikella –Kharsawan. …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner For the State : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P. ….. By the Court:- 1. 2. 3. Heard the parties. Though notice has validly been served upon the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 but no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in-spite of repeated calls. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. 1 Cr.M.P. No.1524 of 2021 registered under 406 of 420 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Nimdih P.S. Case No. 65 of 2020. 4. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner and her husband being in urgent need of money requested the complainant for a friendly loan of Rs.2,50,000/-. On the request of the accused persons, the complainant provided an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the accused persons with the condition that the said amount will be refunded within six months. The petitioner and her husband who are the accused persons of the case did not return back Rs.2,50,000/- but the husband of the petitioner issued cheque of State Bank of India for Rs.2,50,000/-. The complainant presented the said cheque but the same was dishonoured because of insufficiency of funds in the account. The informant demanded payment of the cheque amount but even then the petitioner did not pay any money. The petitioner informant filed Complaint Case No. 405 of 2020 against the petitioner and her husband but the learned Magistrate referred the complaint to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of the case. Police registered the case and after investigation of the case submitted charge sheet against the petitioner and her husband for having committing the offences punishable under Section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The in-charge ACJM vide order dated 09.08.2021 took cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 2 Cr.M.P. No.1524 of 2021 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court to the copy of the legal notice issued by the informant to the husband of the petitioner namely Debdas Mahato, copy of which is kept at page nos. 19-21 of the brief submits that therein it has been categorically mentioned that only Debdas Mahato, the husband of the petitioner took friendly loan of Rs.2,50,000/- and Debdas Mahato issued a cheque for Rs.2,50,000/- and Debdas Mahato did not return the money and upon presentation of the cheque, the same was dishonoured. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that therein it has also been mentioned that and even though the said notice dated 10.08.2020 was issued to the husband of the petitioner, the husband of the petitioner did not pay the money. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is crystal clear from the documentary evidence in the shape of the copy of the legal notice issued by none other than the informant that all the allegations are against the husband of the petitioner and the petitioner admittedly neither issued the cheque nor receive the money. Hence, it is submitted that even if the entire allegations borne out from the record are considered to be true in their entirety, still no offence punishable under the penal provisions of law is made out. It is lastly submitted that the prayer made in this criminal miscellaneous petition the allowed. 6. The learned Spl. P.P. fairly submits that the legal notice issued by the informant shows that it is the husband of the petitioner who issued the cheque and who took the money but the learned Spl. P.P. 3 Cr.M.P. No.1524 of 2021 opposes the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition. 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is crystal clear from the undisputed document available in the record in the shape of the legal notice issued by the advocate of the informant-opposite party no.2 that it is the husband of the petitioner who has allegedly taken money and issued the cheque which was dishonoured and there is no whisper about involvement of the petitioner therein. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the complaint which upon being referred to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Nimdih P.S. Case No. 65 of 2020 has been registered; for wrecking vengeance, even though there is no rhyme or reason to array her as an accused. Hence continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner, even though admittedly she is no way involved in the alleged offence of issue of cheque, dishonour of the cheque, will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. registered under 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Nimdih P.S. Case No. 65 of 2020 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. registered under 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code in connection 4 Cr.M.P. No.1524 of 2021 with Nimdih P.S. Case No. 65 of 2020 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 9.
Decision
In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 17th May, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 5 Cr.M.P. No.1524 of 2021