1. Samsuddin Ansari, aged about 54 years, S/o Jan Mohammad Ansari 2. Safi Alam v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kalimullah Chisti, S/o
Case Details
1 Cr.M.P. No.2709 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2709 of 2022 1. Samsuddin Ansari, aged about 54 years, S/o Jan Mohammad Ansari 2. Safi Alam @ Safi Alam Ansari, aged about 35 years, S/o Samsuddin Ansari 3. Ghulam Jibrail @ Gulam Jibrail, aged about 26 years, S/o Samsuddin Ansari 4. Rasulan Bibi, aged about 37 years, D/o Samsuddin Ansari, W/o Kalimullah 5. Imtiyaz @ Md. Imtiyaz Ahmad, aged about 49 years, S/o Maniruddin Ansari All R/o village –Bandhdih, P.O.+P.S. –Jaridih, District -Bokaro .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kalimullah Chisti, S/o Late Khuda Nawaj, R/o village – Surjudih, P.O.+P.S. –Kasmar, District -Bokaro …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Mukesh Bihari Lal, Advocate : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl. P.P. : Mr. Anjani Nandan, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. 2. Heard the parties. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of C.P. Case No. 501 of 2017 including the order dated 03.12.2018, passed by the 2 Cr.M.P. No.2709 of 2022 learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Bokaro, in connection with C.P. Case No. 501 of 2017 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Bokaro has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 323/380/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner no.4 is the wife of the complainant-opposite party no.2 and the petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3 & 5 are the relatives of the petitioner no.4. The allegation against them is that the complainant-opposite party no.2 on 06.01.2017, gave Talaq three times to the petitioner no.4 and thereafter, in the night, except petitioner no.4, other petitioners came and vandalized the house of the complainant-opposite party no.2 and took away documents of LIC and documents of land, jewelries and cash of Rs.15,000/- and also took the petitioner no.4 and on 07.01.2017, five petitioners came and took the daughter of the petitioner no.4 and the complainant namely Khushi Naaj by forcibly making her seat in the vehicle and when the mother of the complainant-opposite party no.2 went, the petitioner no.5 kicked her, by which she fell down. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this is a clear cut case of wrecking vengeance as the petitioner no.4 first long back filed Kasmar P.S. Case No. 8 of 2017 against the complainant-opposite party no.2 and others which is pending. It is next submitted that it is the admitted case of the complainant- opposite party no.2 as mentioned in the protest-cum-complaint case that first Kasmar P.S. Case No. 16 of 2017 was registered by 3 Cr.M.P. No.2709 of 2022 the police corresponding to G.R. Case No. 193 of 2017 but after investigation of the case, police submitted final form stating therein that the allegation made in the F.I.R. is not true. It is then submitted that since admittedly the petitioner no.4 was in the house of the complainant-opposite party no.2 in the capacity of his wife and she was also taken by the co-accused persons with her belongings, so the same cannot amount to committing theft nor taking the daughter of the complainant-opposite party no.2 who is also the daughter of the petitioner no.4 cannot be termed as theft and in the absence of any allegation of any hurt being caused to anybody, the offence punishable under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out either and this case has been instituted for wrecking vengeance only. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding of C.P. Case No. 501 of 2017 including the order dated 03.12.2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Bokaro, in connection with C.P. Case No. 501 of 2017 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Bokaro has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 323/380/34 of the Indian Penal Code be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of C.P. Case No. 501 of 2017 including the order dated 03.12.2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Bokaro, in connection with C.P. Case No. 501 of 2017 whereby and where under the learned Judicial 4 Cr.M.P. No.2709 of 2022 Magistrate -1st Class, Bokaro has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 323/380/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that there is specific allegation against the petitioners of having committed theft of Rs.15,000/- and other valuable documents as well as the petitioner no.5 kicking the mother of the complainant- opposite party no.2, hence it is submitted that there is enough material in the record to constitute the offences punishable under Section 323/380/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner no.4 is the wife of the complainant-opposite party no.2 and she was in the house of the complainant-opposite party no.2 on the alleged date of occurrence on 06.01.2017 and admittedly the complainant-opposite party no.2 gave three Talaq. It is apparent from these facts that the petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3 & 5 came to take back the petitioner no.4 obviously along with her belongings, hence the same cannot be termed as commission of theft. Similarly, taking the daughter of the petitioner no.4 by the petitioners can also not be termed as theft. In the absence of any specific allegation of any hurt being caused to anybody, the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out. 5 Cr.M.P. No.2709 of 2022 7. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the pendency of Kasmar P.S. Case No. 8 of 2017 against the complainant-opposite party no.2 and others instituted by the petitioner no.4, it is not very difficult to fathom that the basic purpose of lodging of this case is for wrecking vengeance, hence the continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. Under such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding of C.P. Case No. 501 of 2017 including the order dated 03.12.2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Bokaro, in connection with C.P. Case No. 501 of 2017; whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Bokaro has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 323/380/34 of the Indian Penal Code be quashed and set aside. 8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of C.P. Case No. 501 of 2017 including the order dated 03.12.2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Bokaro, in connection with C.P. Case No. 501 of 2017 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Bokaro has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 323/380/34 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside. 9.
Decision
In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 6th December, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)