1. Nirmala Singh 2. Manoj Kumar Singh 3. Saroj Kumar Singh v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Santosh Kumar
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 907 of 2016 Cr.M.P. No. 907 of 2016 1. Nirmala Singh 2. Manoj Kumar Singh 3. Saroj Kumar Singh Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Santosh Kumar --- …Petitioners …Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner For State For the opposite party no. 2 --- : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Suraj Verma, Advocate : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate 06/16.04.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent State and the opposite party no. 2. 2. The prayer is made of quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Chas P.S. Case No. 48 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 261 of 2016 for the alleged offence registered under Section 406, 420, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Bokaro. 3. The First Information Report registered alleging therein : “That the prosecution case, In short, in short, is that the informant is the member of Indian Air Force and booked a Bungalow at K. K. Singh Hosing Colony of K.K. Singh and Associates Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director K. K. Singh on 1.9.2008. The cost of Bungalow was Rs. 10 Lakh which has been paid by the informant in the four equal installment of Rs. 2,50,000/- each. Booking amount was paid on 1.9.2008 and cleared the first installment of Rs. 2,50,000/- till 5.11.2008 receipt has been issued for the same. As per the First Information Report, K. K. Singh does not enter into agreement any with the informant and simply issued money receipt. He has agreed to handover the possession of Bungalow/ flat within a period of two years i.e. till August 2010. It is further allege that after receiving of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the informant the builder did not complete basic formalities execution of registry of land, mutation approval for construction till August,2010 repeated request made by the informant. He did not start construction of work till August 2010. On asking for construction he demanded more money from the informant. The informant has paid Rs. 1,50,000/- on 1 of 4 Cr.M.P. No. 907 of 2016 13.9.2010 after that the builder executed sale deed in favour of the informant for Rs. 3,25,000/- on 21.12.2010. The informant asked for construction but he demanded more money. It is further alleged that on request to complete the construction work and hand over the possession of booked bungalow, he failed to discharge his contracted obligation. The informant has paid Rs. 14 Lakhs till December, 2012. The builder agreed to handover the possession of bungalow in April, 2013. Though telephonic message the informant came to know that the construction has been done and on the direction of the informant one completion certificate has been issued on 3.10.2013. The father-in-law of the informant visited the plot and came to know that Bungalow has not been completed till today. The informant directed to return the said money but the builder has not accepted the same to return with interest. As per informant the builder has committed the offence of cheating, criminal breach of trust, criminal misappropriation, and fraud, criminal intimidate, etc. and other provision of law. On the basis of the written report, the informant requested to protect the life and property of the informant.” 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Chas P.S. Case No. 346 of 2013 was instituted against K.K. Singh who was the proprietor of K.K. Singh’s Housing Colony Chas and other Firms with respect to the some dispute relating to a bungalow. He further submits that in course of investigation the charge sheet was submitted against K.K. Singh in which the allegation made against the K.K. Singh was found to be true. Subsequently, K.K. Singh left for his heavenly abode on 09.07.2015 and the prosecution case was dropped against him. 5. Learned senior counsel further submits after the death of K.K. Singh, the First Information Report being Chas P.S. Case No. 46 of 2016 was instituted on the same and similar allegations against the legal heirs of K.K. Singh which is the subject matter of the present petition. He submits that on this background the filing of the second First Information Report against the legal heirs and successors of K.K. Singh is malicious. He further submits that if any case is made out that is civil in nature and for that the opposite party no. 2 has already move before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Bokaro. To buttress his argument he draws the attention of this Court to annexure-4 which is the complaint petition filed before the District 2 of 4 Cr.M.P. No. 907 of 2016 Consumer Redressal Forum. He submits that in view of that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the State submits that it appears that earlier case was lodged against K.K. Singh thereafter the present case has been lodged against the legal heirs and successors of K.K. Singh. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 submits that later on it was transpired to the informant that these petitioners are also the directors of the firm which was headed by the K.K. Singh. In view of that the present First Information Report has been lodged. He further submits that so far as the consumer complaint case is concerned that was decided in favour of the opposite party no. 2. In this background he submits that this Court may not exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 8. It is an admitted position that earlier a case being Chas P.S. Case No. 346 of 2013 was registered against K.K. Singh who was the proprietor of K.K. Singh Associates Private Limited. Charge sheet was submitted and later on he left for his heavenly abode on 09.07.2015 and thereafter the present case has been lodged against the petitioners who happened to be the legal heirs and successors of K.K. Singh. Further for the same cause of action the informant has also moved before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Bokaro. It was pointed out in course of the argument by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that the same complaint before the District Consumer Forum was decided in favour of the opposite party no. 2. It is crystal clear that if any case is made out it is deficiency in services. It is well settled that any deficiency detected in post purchase an avenue for the aggrieved consumer to seek relief before the consumer Fora. The reference may be made to the case of Debashis Sinha and others Versus RNR Enterprises reported in (2023) 3 SCC 195. 9.
Decision
In view of the above to allow the proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. There is no doubt that circumspection is required in quashing of the proceeding and further if First Information Report is maliciously filed it can be quashed if it is coming within the guidelines in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in (1992 Supp(1) SCC 335) in paragraph 102. 3 of 4 Cr.M.P. No. 907 of 2016 10. In view of the facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Chas P.S. Case No. 48 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 261 of 2016 for the alleged offence registered under Section 406, 420, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Bokaro is quashed and this petition is disposed of. 11. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of. MM/A.F.R. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 4 of 4