1.Prasad Ram Gorain @ Prasadi Gorain 2.Bhaduram Gorai @ Bhadu Gorai @ Jadu Gorain v. The State of Jharkhand and Another
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3327 of 2018 ---- 1.Prasad Ram Gorain @ Prasadi Gorain 2.Bhaduram Gorai @ Bhadu Gorai @ Jadu Gorain 3.Kokil Chandra Gorai @ Kokil Gorai @ Kolal Gorain 4.Murli Dhar Mahato @ Murli Mahato @ Murli Mahto 5.Dhananjay Mohan @ Dhananjay Prasad 6.Surendra Prasad Singh .... Petitioners -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties With Cr.M.P. No.3058 of 2018 ---- Saket Kumar .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand and Another ---- .... Opposite Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P.No.2 :- :- :-
Legal Reasoning
--- Mr. Pradeep Kumar Deomani. Advocate Mr. Sardhu Mahto, Advocate Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, Advocate Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate ---- 7/12.06.2024 In both the cases, a common question of facts as well as order taking cognizance is under challenge and in view of that, both these petitions are heard together with consent of the parties. 2. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the respondent State and the O.P.No.2. 3. In both these petition, the prayers are made for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 26.06.2018 passed in connection with C.P.Case No.51 of 2017, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bokaro. 4. The F.I.R was registered on the allegations made by the O.P.No.2 alleging therein that on 20.05.2016 the O.P.No.2 Shanti Kumar Singh, submitted a written report to the police to the effect that his 1 Cr.M.P. No. 3327 of 2018 Cr.M.P. No. 3058 of 2018 father, Gurupad Singh had purchased 8 decimals of land being portion of plot no.2480 under khata no.148, situated at village Kala Patthar, mouza no.25, district-Bokaro by a registered sale deed no.4754 dated 11.8.2014. It was further alleged that thereafter they came in physical possession of the said land and had been paying rent therefor to the Government. It was further alleged that on 11.05.2016 at about 9.00 a.m, he was carrying out the work of boundary wall over the said land, when seven accused persons (including the petitioners) named in the written report and 10-12 unknown persons came there and surrounded the O.P.No.2 with a view to kill him. Thereafter they allegedly started abusing and assaulting him with lathi and hockey sticks. They allegedly also broke the boundary wall. Then they allegedly started demanding Rs.5,00,000/- by way of extortion. It is further alleged that then the petitioner nos.3,4 and 5 (Kokil Gorain, Murli Mahto and Dhananjay Mohan) caught hold of the O.P.No.2 and the co-accused Saket Kumar snatched Rs.5,000/- from his pocket. Thereafter all of them allegedly threatened that they would kill him if he came to raise the boundary wall without paying the rest amount of extortion of rs.4,95,000/-. Thereafter O.P.No.2 said that he had no claim over plot no.2481. The O.P.No.2 further alleged that on 11.05.2016 he gave written information to the Officer in charge who did not take any step on the same. Thereafter on 16.02.2016 the O.P.No.2 allegedly gave written information to the Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police about the occurrence. Finally, Chas Muffasil P.S. Case No.58 of 2016 dated 21.05.2016 was registered on the basis of the abovesaid written report of the 2 Cr.M.P. No. 3327 of 2018 Cr.M.P. No. 3058 of 2018 O.P.No.2. 5. Mr. Deomani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the said FIR was investigated by the police and final form has been submitted on 13.09.2016 showing that dispute is there for the land and the case is of civil in nature. He submits that thereafter O.P.No.2 has filed protest cum complaint petition dated 17.12.2016 which was registered as C.P.Case No.51 of 2017 and the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance by order dated 26.06.2018 under sections 147, 323, 379, 385, 386, 427, 504, 506 of the IPC. He submits that on 11.5.2016 at about 9.00 a.m petitioner along with others had gone to carry out work of boundary wall over the land measuring an area of 28 decimals purchased in the name of his sister in law Smt. Seema Kumari by registered sale deed dated 22.4.2016, when the O.P.No.2 along with four other persons came there and stopped them from doing any work and started raising boundary wall over the land of the sister in law, Smt. Seema Kumari of the petitioner objected the O.P.No.2, pressed his neck and asked him to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as extortion. Then the father of the O.P.No.2 assaulted the petitioner with slaps and snatched the photocopies of the deed and other documents from him and the opposite party no.2 also snatched his golden chain worth Rs.75,000/-, and for that, a case was filed by the petitioner being Chas (Muffasil) P.S. Case No.56 of 2016 on 17.05.2016 as contained in Annexure-5. He submits that thereafter the FIR being Chas (Muffasil) P.S. Case No.58 of 2016 was lodged by the O.P.No.2 on 21.05.2016 alleging the similar allegations against the petitioners. He submits that one Land Measurement Record No.32 of 2016 -17 has been registered in 3 Cr.M.P. No. 3327 of 2018 Cr.M.P. No. 3058 of 2018 the Office of the Circle Officer, Chas, Bokaro at the instance of sister in law of the petitioner Smt. Seema Kumari for measurement of land admeasuring an area of 0.20 acres of plot no.2481 under khata no.27 in village Kala Patthar, thana no.25, which was purchased in her name by registered sale deed no.1776 dated 22.04.2016 and in the said application, the Circle Officer has took measurement in presence of police officials and found encroachment was made by the O.P.No.2 and these documents are brought on record as Annexure-6. He submits that even Dhananjay Mohan who was a Chartered Accountant and works for Infosys Limited at Bhubaneswar, Odisha has been implicated in the case and he was not present on 11.05.2016. He was discharging his duty in the said company from 11.05.2016 and to buttress his argument he refers to Annexure-7 which is attendance with regard to said company. He submits that maliciously the present case has been lodged against the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 submits that if criminal case is made out, arising out of civil proceeding, both the cases can go simultaneously. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the contents of the protest petition and submits that the allegations are there of quarrel and snatched the amount as well as assault and destroyed the boundary wall and for that criminality is there as such, there is no illegality and the learned court has been rightly pleased to take cognizance. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may not be quashed at this stage as the High Courts are very slow in passing the order under section 482 Cr.P.C if the case is made out. 4 Cr.M.P. No. 3327 of 2018 Cr.M.P. No. 3058 of 2018 7. The learned counsel for the respondent State submits that final form has been submitted and the learned court on protest petition has been pleased to take cognizance. 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 including the contents of complaint petition and further the protest petition filed by the O.P.No.2. It is an admitted fact that the FIR has been lodged by the O.P.No.2 being Chas (Muffasil) P.S. Case No.58 of 2016 which was investigated by the police and final form has been submitted saying the dispute is civil in nature and thereafter the O.P.no.2 has filed protest petition and the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance under the aforesaid sections. Further the documents on record suggest that the sister in law of the petitioner is in coalition with the purchaser of plot no.2481 a proceeding and a proceeding for measurement of the said plot was initiated at the instance of sister in law of the petitioner which was measured in presence of police officials as well as the Cricle Officer and it was found that the O.P.No.2 has illegally occupied certain portion. The petitioner has filed Chas (Muffasil) P.S. Case No.56 of 2016 on 17.05.2016 for occurrence which was taken place on 11.05.2016. The O.P.No.2 has filed Chas (Muffasil) P.S. Case No.58 of 2016 on 21.05.2016 and the Court finds it similar to the allegations made in both the FIRs. The Court has minutely gone through the contents of the FIR and finds that what has been alleged in the FIR filed by the petitioner in Chas (Muffasil) P.S. Case No.56 of 2016 and the same allegation is also made by the O.P.No.2 in Chas (Muffasil) P.S.Case No.58 of 2016 and the case was filed later on 5 Cr.M.P. No. 3327 of 2018 Cr.M.P. No. 3058 of 2018 which suggest that this was after thought of the O.P.no.2. 9. There is no doubt that if a criminal case is made out in a case arising out of civil proceeding, both cases can go simultaneously, but, at the same time, if the criminal case is maliciously lodged, the High Court is having more responsibility to find out truth and for that, the High Court is required to read the things in between the lines. Considering that the contention of first FIR and the FIR lodged by the O.P.No.2 are similar and after much delay the present FIR was lodged by the O.P.No.2 and the same was investigated by the police and final form has been submitted and on protest petition the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance. 10. Above background clearly suggest that this is a case that should not have been allowed to reach to this Court. Immediately after the criminal justice system is set in motion, its course is almost entirely dependent on the judicial application of mind by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate also carries the responsibility for ensuring this stream does not carry forward in cases where it should not. Exercising such power by the learned Magistrate without going through the facts would have great repercussion on individual citizen’s life and liberty and as such, these powers also confer great responsibility on the shoulders of the learned Magistrate which must be exercised with great caution, and after suitable judicial application of mind. Admittedly, the contents of the FIR lodged by the petitioner and the contents of the FIR lodged by the O.P.No.2 are almost similar. The FIR lodged by the petitioner was on 17.05.2016 and the FIR lodged by the O.P.No.2 was on 21.05.2016. Further, the person who was working on alleged day in Bhubaneshwar 6 Cr.M.P. No. 3327 of 2018 Cr.M.P. No. 3058 of 2018 has also been made accused. 11. Merely filing a complaint and adducing 2-3 enquiry witnesses in malicious case has been deprecated by the High Court in the case of “Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate”, (1998) 5 SCC 749. 12. The facts of the present case poses a typical example of frivolous litigation abusing the Court process to achieve their own mischievousness ends. It is further well-settled that this Court has inherent powers to prevent the abuse of its own processes, that this Court shall not suffer a litigant utilizing the institution of justice for unjust means. The facts of the case clearly suggest that maliciously the second FIR was lodged by the O.P.No.2 which was investigated by the police and on the protest petition the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance. 13. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis the Court comes to the conclusion that it is a fit case to exercise power under section 482 Cr.P.C. 14. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 26.06.2018 passed in connection with C.P.Case No.51 of 2017, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bokaro are quashed. 15. Cr.M.P. No.3327 of 2018 and Cr.M.P. No.3058 of 2018 stand
Decision
allowed and disposed of. 16. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/, A.F.R 7 Cr.M.P. No. 3327 of 2018 Cr.M.P. No. 3058 of 2018