Mithilesh Kumar, aged about 37 years son of Bhuvneshwar Paswan, resident of Village Lakhaiya v. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Om Prakash aged about 37, s/o Chetlal Ram, R/o Harihar
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- W.P. (Cr) No. 629 of 2024 Mithilesh Kumar, aged about 37 years son of Bhuvneshwar Paswan, resident of Village Lakhaiya, PO Banahappa, PS-Tatijhariya, District Hazaribagh .... Petitioner ---- -- Versus -- 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Om Prakash aged about 37, s/o Chetlal Ram, R/o Harihar Colony, Bada Bazar, P.O. and P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribagh .... Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :- For the State :- For the Resp. No.2 (Inf.) :-
Legal Reasoning
--- Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Prakhar Kr. Vishain, Advocate Mr. K. Prajapati, Advocate Mr. S.B.Gupta, Advocate ---- 5/25.11.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent State as well as the learned counsel for the respondent no.2. 2. The prayer in this petition has been made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 03.01.2023 arising out of Complaint Case No.1554 of 2022, pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hazaribagh. 3. The C.P. Case No.1554 2022 has been filed alleging therein against the four accused persons that on 05.06.2022 the respondent no.2 filed a counter case being Mahila (Sadar) P.S. Case No.1 of 2022, against Rinki Kumari, Nageshwar Ram, Vinod Paswal and Mithilesh Kumar under sections 323, 452, 380, 384, 504, 506 of the IPC and section 3/4 of Prevention of Witch Craft Act. 4. As per complaint petition the factual matrix of the case is that the accused no.1 namely Rinki Kumari is the wife of the complainant and due to misbehaviors of accused Rinki Kumari, the complainant had 1 W.P. (Cr) No. 629 of 2024 filed a case in Family Court, Hazaribagh. On 31.01.2022 at around 10.00 a.m. all the accused persons forcibly entered the house of the complainant and started abusing and saying Daain to complainant’s mother and started assaulting the complainant and his family members. Further the petitioner also stole Rs.50,000/- from the house of the O.P.No.2. The accused Rinki Kumari also threatened them to file a false case of cruelty and abducted three minor children of complainant. Thereafter on 5.2.2022 at around 11.00 a.m the accused persons armed with knife entered the house of the complainant and assaulted him and forcibly made him sign a blank paper. 5. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that prior to C.P.Case No.1554 of 2022 the accused no.1 has lodged the F.I.R against the respondent no.2 and his family alleging cruelty and dowry demand and solemnizing second marriage of the complainant which was registered as Hazaribagh (Mahila) P.S. Case No.1 of 2022 in which charge sheet was submitted against the respondent no.2 along with his father and mother namely Tara Devi. This petitioner was not accused in the earlier case. He submits that the petitioner happened to be senior bank manager in the State Bank of India and his role is only with regard to the transaction of the concerned bank and a joint loan was taken by husband and wife which was being paid by Rinki Kumari who happened to be wife and suddenly she has stopped paying the same and thereafter dispute arose and the present complaint has been filed wherein the petitioner has also been made accused. He submits that the present case is lodged by the husband of the accused no.1 and this is a counter blast case filed by Rinki Devi in mechanical way and the petitioner has been made accused. 2 W.P. (Cr) No. 629 of 2024 He submits that in the entire complaint there is no allegation against the petitioner. By way of drawing the attention of the Court to Annexure-8, he submits that on the alleged date of occurrence dated 31.01.2022 and on 05.02.2022 the petitioner was present in the Branch and he has made appearance by way of bio-matric method that has been certified by the Manager (HR) of the said Bank. On this ground, he submits that mechanically the learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioner who happened to be bank manager. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that on the complaint petition the learned court has taken cognizance. 7. Leaned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposed the petition and submits that at this stage what has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be looked into and that can be the subject matter of trial. He submits that there is allegation of looting Rs.50,000/- by this petitioner from the house of the complainant. He submits that in view of that this Court may not interfere at this stage. 8. In view of the above submission of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record. It is an admitted position that earlier Rinki Kumari, who is made accused no.1 in the present complaint, has filed one case being Hazaribagh (Mahila) P.S. Case No.1 of 2022 against respondent no.2 and the in-laws under section 498A IPC and other sections which was investigated by the police and charge sheet has been submitted and in that case the present petitioner is not an accused. Thereafter the husband of Rinki Kumari has filed the present complaint alleging that this petitioner has looted Rs.50,000/- from the house of the respondent 3 W.P. (Cr) No. 629 of 2024 no.2. Annexure-8 is the document issued by the Manager (HR) of the State Bank of India wherein it is stated that on 31.01.2022 and 05.02.2022 this petitioner was present in the Bank by way of bio-matric presence and he has acted in the bank and ledger, etc., has been operated which clearly suggest that on the alleged date of occurrence this petitioner was present in the Branch and he has acted there which is certified by the Manager (HR) of the said Bank. 9. A reference may be made to the case of Rajiv Thapar & Ors. vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, reported in (2013) 3 SCC 330 wherein at paragraph nos.30 to 30.5 it was held as under: “30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:- 30.1. Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2. Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. 30.3. Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4. Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 4 W.P. (Cr) No. 629 of 2024 10. Coming to the facts of the present case, what has been discussed hereinabove, it is crystal clear that on the alleged date of occurrence this petitioner was present in the bank by way of bio-matric log-in of the attendance and has acted there which is certified by none other than the Manager (HR) of the said Bank. Frivolous litigation should not become the order of the day in India and the justice delivery system should not be used as a tool to fulfill personal vendetta. From what has been discussed hereinabove, it is crystal clear that maliciously so far the petitioner is concerned, he has been made accused and the learned court has taken cognizance. Moreover, in mechanical way by way of adducing 2-3 enquiry witnesses put the criminal court into motion is a very serious thing as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate”, (1998) 5 SCC 749. 11. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court comes to the conclusion that so far as this petitioner is concerned, maliciously the present complaint case has been filed against this petitioner and the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance. As such, entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 03.01.2023 arising out of Complaint Case No.1554 of 2022, pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hazaribagh so far as this petitioner is concerned, are hereby, quashed. 12. 13. SI/, A.F.R
Decision
This petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 5 W.P. (Cr) No. 629 of 2024