Shashank Shekhar v. CORAM : HON’BLE
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr.) No. 443 of 2023 Shashank Shekhar ..... … Petitioner The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ..... … Respondents Versus -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ : : ------ 04/ 08.08.2023 Heard Mr. Suraj Verma, learned counsel appearing for the Mr. Suraj Verma, Advocate. Mrs. Rashmi Lal, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-III. For the Petitioner For the State petitioner and Mrs. Rashmi Lal, learned A.C. to Sr.S.C.-III appearing for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Argora P.S. Case No. 169 of 2023 dated 18.04.2023 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi. 3.
Legal Reasoning
The FIR was lodged alleging therein that the informant is an IAS Officer and present working as Registrar Co-Operative Society, Mizorum Gov. cum Director of Census Operation under Home Ministry Indian Gov. It is alleged in the FIR that Shashank Shekhar who happens to be Managing Director of M/S Shield Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. has illegally taken possession over the informant's double story house situated at Harmu Housing Colony, Ranchi and the same is being used by him for practicing fraud and doing other illegal activities for his secret mission. It is further stated by the informant that the said house is purchased by his father namely Late Jageshwar Ram in the year 1977 who happens to be Additional District Magistrate, Ranchi and after his death the said house was jointly inherited by the legal heirs including his brother and sisters, it is also mentioned that in the above mentioned legal heir's informant's elder brother namely Dr. Shambhu Nath IAS who retired from the post of Chief Secretary, U.P., is also there. It is further alleged that after death of his mother, the said house was given to the informant for maintaining the same. And to that effect a Power of Attorney is also given by all the Legal heirs and on the strength of said power of Attorney the property in question was is given to the petitioner on rental basis. For some time, the accused regularly made payment to the informant but after some -2- time her started making default in paying the rent in beginning he was made remember to pay the rent and later on several notices were issued to the accused to vacate the premises but the accused did not choose to vacate the premises. And as such an Eviction Suit being JBC Case No. 15/2020, is filed before SDO, Ranchi which is still pending. It is further alleged that it has come to the knowledge of the informant that the accused petitioner has created several companies without obtaining NOC certificate from the owner of the premises in question. The same act is being done by the accused with malafide intension to grab the property of the informant. The lists of companies which are made by illegal means are mentioned hereinunder:- सीआईएन / एफसीआरएन कं पनी का नाम (cid:366)ारं भ ितिथ पता यू92412जेएच2014 Shield Shooting 20.02.2014 House No. M/5 Harmu पीटीसी 002003 Academy Pvt. Ltd. Housing Colony, Ranchi JH 834002 IN यू70109जेएच2016 Shield Infrastructure 15.03.2016 पीटीसी 003647 Pvt. Ltd. यू74999जेएच2016 Shield Special Cover 21.06.2016 पीटीसी 008899 Pvt. Ltd. यू63000जेएच2016 Shield Transfer Pvt. 22.06.2016 पीटीसी 008907 Ltd. यू22219जेएच2019 Thakur Media Works 04.10.2019 पीटीसी 013529 Pvt. Ltd. यू15203 जेएच2020 Mother’s wish Pvt. Ltd. 19.07.2020 पीटीसी 014627 -do- -do- -do- -do- -do- यू92490 जेएच2021 Shweta Films Pvt. Ltd. 03.05.2021 Marfat Vinay Kumar, पीटीसी 016455 House No. M/5 Harmu Housing Colony, Ranchi JH 834002 IN यू85110जेएच2022 Thakur Life Care Pvt. 21.07.2022 -do- पीटीसी 019063 Ltd. It is further alleged that accused's intension is very serious and also breach of law particularly in connection with Shweta Films Pvt. Ltd. and Thakur Life care Pvt. Ltd. Wherein he has used his name illegally. And accused's criminal intention is very much evident from the act mentioned hereinunder:- I. Without obtaining NOC from the owners of the house the accused has created the company. II. With an intension to practice fraud the accused without consent of a Serving officer and after using his name illegally created the company. -3- It is further alleged that from the official website of corporate work ministry it is evident that the companies are created illegally in informant's parental house as because he was not residing there legally. And one hand the accused was served with a notice to evict the house and on the other hand the accused used name of the informant in creating Shweta Films Pvt. Ltd. and Thakur life Care Pvt. Ltd. with malafide intension. And there is strong suspicion that the accused has created these companies on the basis of false and fabricated documents. It is further requested by the informant that the accused with an intension to play fraud and to capture the property of a Serving IAS Officer. And also to tarnish the reputation of a Serving IAS Officer, the accused may be prosecuted. It is also averted that the informant belongs to reservation category and as such stern and fair action may be taken against the accused person and accordingly the connected FIR was registered. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Suraj Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the bona fide tenant of the property in question and he has occupied the said property pursuant to an agreement. He submits that for eviction of the petitioner, the informant has filed the case before the learned SDO under the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000, which was registered as JBC Case No. 15 of 2020. He further submits that the when the landlord tenant relation is there, the case is already pending, for that the present FIR has been filed, which is against the mandate of law. He further submits that the contents of the FIR was sent to the police on 31.03.2023, wherein the case has been registered on 18.04.2023 after lapse of more than 15 days, which is against the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Versus Govt. of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. 5. On the other hand, Mrs. Rashmi Lal, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that there are allegation of using the name of the petitioner and other family members in the Shell companies and in view of that this is not the case of quashing of the FIR. 6. In view of the above submissions of the parties, the court has gone through the contents of the FIR and finds that admittedly the -4- informant is an I.A.S. officer posted in the State of Mizoram and he has disclosed in the said FIR that the said property was constructed by his father and after his death, her mother occupied the same and after the death of mother, the petitioner, his brother and sisters are the joint owners of the said property. In the FIR itself, it has been disclosed about filing of the case under the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000. In the FIR, it has further been disclosed that in absence of any NOC taken from the owners of the property in question, the petitioner has made several Shell companies and the property in question has been made the headquarters of that companies. The using of name of the informant in the shell companies has also been alleged in the FIR. Allegations are also made to use the forged document for making the shell companies. Thus, there are allegations of using the name of the informant fraudulently in making the Shell companies that too in absence of any NOC. Even assuming that the case is pending with regard to eviction, which has also been disclosed in the FIR, the criminality in the above background is made out and the matter is still pending and also the investigation is going on. There are parameters of quashing of the FIR. In the present case, there are allegations of using the name of an IAS offfcer, who is posted in the State of Mizoram falsely, in creating the name of the Shell Companies without obtaining any NOC and the said building was not handed over to the petitioner for that. 7. So far as the argument of registering the FIR on 18.04.2023 is misplaced one, in view of the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (Supra). It is an admitted fact that the said complaint was received by the police on 31.03.2023, however, looking into the nature of the complaint, it appears that the police has started the preliminary enquiry and thereafter on coming to a conclusion, the FIR has been registered that mandate is there in the case of Lalita Kumari (Supra). Thus, that point is also not helping the petitioner. 8. In view of the above, no relief can be extended to the petitioner, as such, this petition is dismissed, as this case is not coming in any of the parameters, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para-102 in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Amitesh/- (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)