Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar Gupta v. 1.The State of Jharkhand. 2.Nalini Ranjan Mukherjee
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 1586 of 2018 Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar Gupta .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand. 2.Nalini Ranjan Mukherjee With .. ... ...Opp. Party(s) Cr. M. P. No. 1236 of 2017 Mukesh Kumar Sinha .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand. 2.Nalini Ranjan Mukherjee With .. ... ...Opp. Party(s) Cr. M. P. No. 1271 of 2017 Praveen Singh Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand. 2.Nalini Ranjan Mukherjee ........... .... .. ... Petitioner(s) .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Petitioner(s) : For the State : Mr. Nikhilesh Kr. Chatterjee, Advocate Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocate Mr. P. A. S. Pati, Advocate Mr. Vijoy Kr. Sinha, APP 06/ 18.10.2023. …... Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. The aforesaid three Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions arise out of Complaint Case No.1914 of 2016 and have been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the common summoning order dated 06.01.2017 passed by learned ACJM, Ranchi whereby and whereunder a prima facie case has been found to be made out against the petitioners under Sections 403, 404, 409, 406, 417, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) IPC. Since the matter involves common questions of fact and law, therefore they are heard together and shall be disposed by the common order. 2. Petitioners are Branch head of different banks and the complaint has been filed on 23.08.2016 against one Shyamali Mitra (W/o Late Ramdeo Mitra) and these petitioners. 3. The sum and substance of the complaint case is that the Complainant was owner of the plot of land bearing No.1361, Burdhaman Compound, P.S. Lalpur, Ranchi, which was jointly purchased by the complainant and his brother, Priti Ranjan Mukherjee on 22.05.1965 by registered sale deed. The co-owner, Priti Ranjan Mukherjee died unmarried on 24.08.2015 and his share devolved upon the complainant. 4. It is alleged that accused no.1, Shyamali Mitra by exercising undue influence over said Priti Ranjan Mukherjee started operating his Bank account and also 2 obtained signature of Priti Ranjan Mukherjee on a Will executed on 01.01.2012 and after his death, accused no.1 came in control over his entire property. 5. Allegation against the petitioners is that they connived with the accused no.1. 6. Statement of the complainant and two witnesses were examined in enquiry and on the basis of which, the processes have been issued against the petitioners. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner(s) that this is an unfortunate case where the Branch Managers have been implicated in property dispute between the complainant and accused no.1. 8. As a matter of fact, the raging property dispute between the complainant and the accused no.1 has been set to rest by compromise entered into between both the sides both in Original Suit No.362 of 2016 and also in Succession Case No.106 of 2015. Both these cases have been disposed of on the basis of compromise between the parties. The joint compromise petition entered between the parties including the Complainant and Accused no.1 has been exhibited and marked as Exhibit-A in Succession Case No.106 of 2015 . 9. After the said compromise, the complainant/ Opp. Party no.2 has lost any interest in the case and counsel on his behalf is not appearing before this Court. 10. On merit, it is submitted that even if the averment(s) made in the complaint petition is assumed to be true, no offence will be made out against the petitioners. The allegation is directed against accused no.1 (Shyamali Mitra) and it is alleged that undue influence was exercised by her in getting bank account(s) opened jointly in the name of accused no.1 and Priti Ranjan Mukherjee (complainant) and because of inter-se property dispute of the complainant and accused no.1, the bank officials have been implicated in the case. No specific role has been attributed to these Petitioners either in the complaint or in the statement recorded enquiry. It is only stated that Bank Management was also recorded. 11. Learned APP for the State has defended the impugned order. It is submitted that the averment made in the complaint has been supported in the statement of the complainant and witnesses. 12. The present case is classical example of misuse of process of Court to settle score for property dispute between the Complainant and Accused No.1. On the materials on record processes should have not been issued against the Petitioners and the Complaint was fit to be dismissed u/s 203 Cr.P.C. 13. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner (Mukesh Kumar Sinha) in Cr. M. P. No.1236 of 2017 that he was not even posted in the said Branch when the said account(s) was opened. The allegation pertains to 24.08.2015 whereas the petitioner (Mukesh Kumar Sinha) had been relieved from the said branch on 11.07.2015. 3 14. From a plain reading of the complaint, it is apparent that the complaint is directed against Accused no.1. It is said that Accused no.1 exercised her undue influence on the brother of the Complainant, to execute the Will in her favour and stole his passbook and got the amount withdrawn from his account in connivance with the Bank Managers. Falsity of the allegation is partly disclosed by the fact that one of the Bank Manager was not even posted at the relevant time in the said Branch. Statement of the complainant and witnesses are completely bereft of the role played by these petitioners. To state that the management of the bank was responsible is not sufficient to fasten individual liability on the Petitioners. The statement by its very nature is sweeping and general and is not sufficient to make out a prima-facie case against the petitioner. The criminal case was an outcome of a civil property dispute which has ended in compromise between Complainant and Accused No.1. Prima-facie case is not made out against the petitioners and it will be an abuse of process of court to permit the continuation of the criminal proceeding. Under the circumstance the entire criminal proceeding including the common summoning order dated 06.01.2017 passed by learned ACJM, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.1914 of 2016 is allowed. The aforesaid three Cr. M. Ps. are allowed.
Decision
Pending, I.A., if any stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/ Uploaded.