Khunti v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2001 of 2021 ------ 1. Rupesh Nand Tiwary aged about 44 years. 2. Sitesh Nand Tiwary, aged about 39 years. 3. Rajesh Tiwary, aged about 37 years. All S/o Late Chintamani Nand Tiwary, R/o Village- Karra Road, Khunti, P.O. & P.S. Khunti, District- Khunti. Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party … Petitioners ------ For the Petitioners For the State
Legal Reasoning
view that as prima facie the offence punishable under Sections 448, 341, 323, 353, 506, 290, 34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners so, this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 19.08.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 4 Cr. M.P. No.2001 of 2021 Khunti in connection with Khunti P.S. Case No.40 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. No.292 of 2019 be quashed and set aside. 10. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 19th of June, 2024 AFR/ Animesh 5 Cr. M.P. No.2001 of 2021
Arguments
: Mr. Pankaj Kr. Dubey, Advocate : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, Addl. P.P. ------ P R E S E N T 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 to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 19.08.2019 involving the offences punishable under Sections 448, 341, 323, 353, 506, 290, 34 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti in connection with Khunti P.S. Case No.40 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. No.292 of 2019 pending in the court of C.J.M, Khunti. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner committed criminal trespass, wrongfully restrained Prem Nath Tiwary, caused him hurt and used criminal force to deter public servant being the Head Clerk of District 1 Cr. M.P. No.2001 of 2021 Registration Office, Khunti in execution of his duty as such public servant and with an intent to prevent and deter the informant and the Computer Operator of the District Registration, Khunti from discharging their duties and further criminally intimidated them and also committed public nuisance. The F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons and police took up investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, police found complicity of the petitioners and the co-accused persons and collected sufficient materials and sent up the petitioners for trial for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 448, 341, 323, 353, 506, 290, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The learned Magistrate considering the materials in the record, framed charge but the said order framing charge has not been challenged by the petitioners. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners are innocent and they are not named in the F.I.R. It is further submitted that the petitioner No.3 has filed Original Partition Suit No.15 of 2019. The petitioners submitted application in the Registration Office, Khunti as well as the Deputy Collector, Khunti. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 448, 341, 323, 353, 506, 290, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer made in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 19.08.2019 passed by the learned 2 Cr. M.P. No.2001 of 2021 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti in connection with Khunti P.S. Case No.40 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. No.292 of 2019 and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners for having committed the offence of criminal trespass, using criminal force to the public servant- Head Clerk and Computer Operator of District Registration Office, deterring them from discharging their duties. It is next submitted that admittedly the petitioners did not want the document presented by Prem Nath Tiwary to be registered but that does not vest them with any power to use criminal force against the public servant being Head Clerk and Computer Operator of District Registration Office in discharge of their duties. Hence, it is submitted that as the offence punishable against the petitioners is made out, hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. 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 there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of having used criminal force to deter the public servants being the Head Clerk and Computer Operator of District Registration Office, Khunti from discharging their official duty after making criminal trespass and also having criminally intimidated the informant and the computer operator of District Registration Office. It is the case of the petitioners that they do not want the instrument sought to be registered by the victim- Prem Nath Tiwary being registered by the Sub Registrar but that certainly does not vest them with any right or authority to use criminal force against the public servants. 3 Cr. M.P. No.2001 of 2021 7. So far as the claim of the petitioners that the allegation against them is false is concerned, certainly the same is a defence which they can take during the trial of the case but it is a settled principle of law that the veracity of the defence put forth by the accused, cannot be verified in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court, as that would be job of the trial court, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Others reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Another vs. Akhil Sharda & Others reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 598 reiterated the settled principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, para-7 of which reads as under :- “7. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered. (Emphasis supplied) 9. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered