The High Court
Case Details
With 1 Cr.M.P. No. 2229 of 2013 Cr.M.P. No. 3582 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2229 of 2013 Baijnath Gupta @ Baidyanath Sahu … Petitioner -Versus- 1. 2. The State of Jharkhand Sachidanand Prasad … Opposite Parties With Cr.M.P. No. 3582 of 2013 Vishwanath Gupta … Petitioner -Versus- 1. 2. The State of Jharkhand Sachidanand Prasad ----- … Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners For the State : Mr. Ankur Anand, Advocate : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P. ----- ----- 10/04.10.2023 Heard Mr. Ankur Anand, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Fahad Allam, learned counsel for the State. 2. Vide order dated 11.04.2023, considering that opposite party no.2 was not appearing before the learned Court as disclosed in the status report, the Officer-in-Charge, Bariatu Police Station, Ranchi was directed to take steps for service of notice upon opposite party no.2. Pursuant to that, in spite of best efforts, whereabouts of opposite party no.2 has not been found out, which is disclosed in the affidavit filed by the Officer-in-Charge of concerned Police Station. Accordingly, these petitions are being heard in absence of opposite party no.2. 3. In both the petitions, common question of facts and laws are involved and that is why, both the petitions are being heard together with consent of the parties. 4. In both the petitions, the prayer is made for quashing of the entire criminal case being Complaint Case No.1716 of 2008 including the order With 2 Cr.M.P. No. 2229 of 2013 Cr.M.P. No. 3582 of 2013 taking cognizance dated 25.09.2008 as well as the orders dated 20.07.2009 and 27.11.2012, whereby, non-bailable warrant of arrest and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. respectively have been directed to be issued against the petitioners, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Ranchi. 5. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the complainant (opposite party no.2) is an Ex-Military person. His son is an officer in the Indian Army. He hired a Truck from M/s Kabir Transport Service for carrying his personal luggage and household articles from Delhi to Ranchi. Opposite party no.2 has also paid a sum of Rs.17,000/-, but the Transporter issued a Bill amounting to Rs.14,020/- on the pretext that the remaining amount is the commission of the Transporter. It was further alleged that a Truck bearing Registration No. HR-55E-0240 was provided to carry the luggage and household articles of the complainant from Delhi to Ranchi. The entire household articles including the luggage, Hero Honda CD-Dawn bearing Registration No. JH-01G-1225 and other belongings like bags and baggage, the boxes, furniture, Lady Cycle, packet of utensils worth Rs.15,00,000/- on 14.07.2008. Thereafter, the Truck was covered with Tarpoline tied with a rope and sealed and the Truck was deported for Ranchi. Opposite party no.2 also started his journey by Train and reached at Ranchi on 16.07.2008. The Truck was expected to reach Ranchi on 17.07.2008, but did not reach even till late night of 18.07.2008. It was also alleged that opposite party no.2 tried to locate the Truck and finally reached Ramgarh. The Truck driver wanted to work with the Truck, but the truck was seized and the luggage of the opposite party no.2 was not found. The luggage and household articles With 3 Cr.M.P. No. 2229 of 2013 Cr.M.P. No. 3582 of 2013 were not available in the truck and the truck was loaded with other articles of other persons and for other destination. The truck was brought along with its new loading to Ranchi, but the driver, owner and Khalasi fled away leaving abandoned the Truck near Fauzi Transport, Dela Toli, Kokar, Ranchi. It was alleged that the belongings of the complainant have been stolen with the collusion of the Transporter, owner and the driver of the truck and on this ground, the complaint case was filed. 6. Mr. Ankur Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that so far as Baijnath Gupta @ Baidyanath Sahu (petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.2229 of 2013) is concerned, he is the elder brother of Vishwanath Gupta (petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 3582 of 2013) and Baijnath Gupta @ Baidyanath Sahu has nothing to do with the Transport business and the allegations are there of not delivering the goods of the son of the complainant to Ranchi. He submits that in view of that, the case is not made out so far as Baijnath Gupta @ Baidyanath Sahu is concerned. To substantiate this argument, he refers to Annexures-5 and 6 of the supplementary affidavit, which suggest that the proprietor of the said firm namely M/s Kabir Transport Service is Vishwanath Gupta. 7. Mr. Fahad Allam, learned counsel for the State submits that at this stage, this Court may not quash the entire criminal case and the arguments of the defence can only be agitated before the learned Court in trial. 8. Looking to the aforesaid facts and after going through the documents brought on record, it transpires that Baijnath Gupta @ Baidyanath Sahu is the elder brother of the proprietor of the Transport, namely, Vishwanath Gupta. Looking into the complaint, it transpires that so far as Baijnath With 4 Cr.M.P. No. 2229 of 2013 Cr.M.P. No. 3582 of 2013 Gupta @ Baidyanath Sahu is concerned, there is no allegation and the documents on record suggest that he has nothing to do with the said Transport. The role of Baijnath Gupta @ Baidyanath Sahu is not disclosed in the complaint case and the allegations are there of not delivering the goods from Delhi to Ranchi. The documents brought on record by way of the supplementary affidavit also strengthen the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that Vishwanath Gupta is the proprietor of M/s Kabir Transport Service. 9. The Court finds that there are allegations against the said firm of not delivering the goods at Ranchi and Vishwanath Gupta is the proprietor of the said firm. 10.
Decision
In view of the above facts, so far as Baijnath Gupta @ Baidyanath Sahu (petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.2229 of 2013) is concerned, entire criminal case being Complaint Case No.1716 of 2008 including the order taking cognizance dated 25.09.2008 as well as the orders dated 20.07.2009 and 27.11.2012 passed against him, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi are quashed. 11. The Court has not interfered with the prayer made by the Vishwanath Gupta (petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 3582 of 2013) and he will appear before the learned Court and take steps in view of the fact that in spite of best efforts made by this Court and even the police has not been able to serve notice upon opposite party no.2 and there are provisions in the Cr.P.C. of dismissing the complaint case. 12. Vishwanath Gupta (petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 3582 of 2013) will appear before the learned Court and on his presence, non-bailable warrant of arrest With 5 Cr.M.P. No. 2229 of 2013 Cr.M.P. No. 3582 of 2013 and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C, as issued against him, shall be kept in abeyance. If Vishwanath Gupta (petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 3582 of 2013) is failed to appear before the learned Court, the learned Court is at liberty to take all coercive action against Vishwanath Gupta. 13. Accordingly, Cr.M.P. No.2229 of 2013 is allowed and disposed of in above terms. 14. Consequently, Cr.M.P. No.3582 of 2013 is dismissed in above terms. 15. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of. Ajay/ (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)