The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1793 of 2021 ------ 1. Rajib Kumar Singh, aged about 47 years, son of Late Shiv Nath Singh, resident of Flat No.3366, Block No.33, Vijaya Gardens, Baridih, Near Mercy Hospital, P.O. Baridih, P.S. Sidhgora, Town Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum East. 2. Ashwini Banerjee, aged 56 years, son of Late S. N. Banerjee, resident of 302, Uphar Apartment, Uliyan Road, Kadma Post office Kadma, Police Station Kadma, Town Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum East 3. Ashish Kumar, aged about 44 Years, son of Late Lakshmi Kant Jha, resident of Ram Jaypal Path, Opposite Ambedkar Dental College, Hari Om Nagar, Dinapur-cum-Khagaul, Post office and Police Station Khaugal, Patna, District Patna, State Bihar. 4. Shibaji Banerjee, aged 50 years, son of Late Rashbehari Banerjee, resident of 132/5, R.A.K. Road, Post Office Bangur Avenue and Police Station Dum Dum, Kolkata- 55, State West Bengal … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ranjit Kumar Choudhary, son of Late Satyanarayan Choudhary, resident of Tank Road, Ulidih, Post Office Mango, Police Station Mango (Ulidih), Town Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum East For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No.2 … Opposite Parties ------
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kr. Sah, Advocate Mr. Sagar Kumar, Advocate Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kr., Advocate : Ms. Amrita Kumari, Addl.P.P. : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T 1 Cr. M.P. No.1793 of 2021 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 for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Mango (Olidih) P.S. Case No.146 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code which is now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Jamshedpur. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners being the officers of Hindustan Unilever Limited- a company, did not respond to the mails sent by the informant to them complaining non-supply of the articles against the bills of Rs.13,51,686.35 and Rs.62,401.50 but the same were not supplied by the co-accused persons who are the CNF agents of the said Hindustan Unilever Limited Company and it is alleged that the petitioners, in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons, have criminally intimidated the informant and have cheated the informant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mariam Fasihuddin & Another vs. State by Adugodi Police Station & Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 58 paragraph-24 of which reads as under:- “24. It is well known that every deceitful act is not unlawful, just as not every unlawful act is deceitful. Some acts may be termed both as unlawful as well as deceitful, and such acts alone will fall within the purview of Section 420 IPC. It must also be understood that a statement of fact is deemed ‘deceitful’ when it is false, and is knowingly or recklessly made with the intent that it shall be acted upon by another person, resulting in damage or loss. ‘Cheating’ involves a preceding deceitful act that therefore, generally dishonestly induces a person to deliver any property or any part of a 2 Cr. M.P. No.1793 of 2021 valuable security, prompting the induced person to undertake the said act, which they would not have done but for the inducement.” and submits that admittedly since there was a series of bank transactions between the parties and this is not the first transaction, hence, in the absence of any preceding deceitful act that dishonestly induced the informant to deliver any property, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207 paragraphs-24 and 25 of which read 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 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 3 Cr. M.P. No.1793 of 2021 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 the execution of such threat.” (emphasis supplied) A plain reading of the allegations in the complaint does not satisfy all the ingredients as noticed above.” and submits that the allegation of offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is against the co-accused persons namely Pawan Agrawal and Sunil Jha who are not the petitioners in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition nor is there any allegation against the petitioners of committing any of the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for by the petitioners in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, be allowed. 6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Mango (Olidih) P.S. Case No.146 of 2019 which is now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Jamshedpur and submit that the conduct of the petitioners goes to show that the petitioners, in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons, were instrumental in commission of the offences for which the F.I.R. of the case has been registered. Hence, it is submitted that at this nascent stage, the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Mango (Olidih) P.S. Case No.146 of 2019 which is now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Jamshedpur, ought not be quashed and set aside. 4 Cr. M.P. No.1793 of 2021 7. 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 the undisputed fact remains that there were a series of business transactions between the parties and the money has been paid by the petitioners to the company in the name and style of Hindustan Unilever Limited Company. There is no allegation against the petitioners that the petitioners have any role in the control of the affairs of the company concerned. There is no allegation of any inducement of the informant caused by any of the petitioners. There is also no allegation against the petitioners of criminally intimidating the informant or intentionally insulting him. The only allegation against the petitioners is that they being the officers of the said Hindustan Unilever Limited Company have not responded to the repeated mails sent by the informant to them. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made in the F.I.R. are considered to be true in their entirety, still none of the offences for which the F.I.R. has been registered, is made out against any of the four petitioners. Accordingly, the continuation of this criminal proceedings against the petitioners, in the considered opinion of this Court, will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Mango (Olidih) P.S. Case No.146 of 2019 which is now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Jamshedpur, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. 8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Mango (Olidih) P.S. Case No.146 of 2019 which is now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Jamshedpur, is quashed and set aside qua the 5 Cr. M.P. No.1793 of 2021 petitioners only. But it is made clear, that the criminal proceeding will continue, against the rest of the accused persons of the case. 9.
Decision
In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 06th of May, 2024 AFR/ Animesh-Saroj 6 Cr. M.P. No.1793 of 2021