Nawal Kishore Singh @ Naval Singh, aged about 70 years, son of Late Jagannath v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Moumita Maity, wife of Arumoy Maity, resident of
Case Details
1 Cr.M.P. No.3008 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3008 of 2022 Nawal Kishore Singh @ Naval Singh, aged about 70 years, son of Late Jagannath Singh, resident of Kapil Math Road, P.O. & P.S.- Madhpur, Dist.- Deoghar .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Moumita Maity, wife of Arumoy Maity, resident of 52 Bigha Madhupur, P.O. & P.S.- Madhupur, Dist.- Deoghar …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
that there is no dispute to the settled principle of law that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, the said criminal proceeding ought to be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, the only contention of the petitioner is that the eviction proceeding was initiated before the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controller, Madhupur in the district of Deoghar. As rightly submitted by the learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2; that no case number of such proceeding has been mentioned anywhere either in the petition nor has the certified copy of the purported plaint of that case been filed. The purported copy of the plaint which has been annexed as Annexure-2/1 is not a certified copy. The 7 Cr.M.P. No.3008 of 2022 contents of the FIR or the charge sheet do not show any indication of any eviction suit being pending against the informant of that case. 11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the materials placed in the record is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that this criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and this criminal proceeding is maliciously instituted with ulterior motive. Certainly, the petitioner can take the said plea as his defence during the trial of the case. 12. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 25.06.2022 in connection with POCSO Case No.11 of 2022 arising out of Madhupur (Mahila) P.S. Case No.08 of 2022, passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act cases, Deoghar be quashed or set aside. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. The interim order granted earlier to the petitioner stand vacated. 13. 14. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 9th November, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Arguments
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners For the State For O.P. No.2 : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Nishant Kr. Roy, Advocate : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. : Mr. Anuj Kr. Trivedi, Advocate : Mr. Shubham Kumar, 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 including the order dated 25.06.2022 passed in connection with POCSO Case No.11 of 2022 arising out of Madhupur (Mahila) P.S. Case No.08 of 2022, passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act cases, Deoghar whereby and where under, the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act cases, Deoghar has taken cognizance for the offence punishable 2 Cr.M.P. No.3008 of 2022 under Section 354B of Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 8 of POCSO Act. 3. The brief facts of the case is that on 22.04.2022 at about 12:30 pm, the petitioner who is aged about 70 years and who is the landlord of the informant made the daughter of the informant aged 13 years sit on his bed and gave cold drink to be taken by the minor victim girl and forcibly made her sit on his lap and touched the private part of the victim girl and outrage her modesty and forced the minor girl to promise that she will not disclose the occurrence to anybody. 4. Police after investigation of the case submitted charge sheet and found the allegation to be true inter alia basing upon the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim girl and submitted charge sheet against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Section 354B of Indian Penal Code and under Section 8 of POCSO Act. 5. The learned Special Judge, POCSO Act cases, Deoghar consequent upon the receipt of the charge sheet has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 354B of Indian Penal Code and under Section 8 of POCSO Act against the petitioner and has also taken cognizance of the said two offences. 6. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vineet Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2017) 13 SCC 369, paragraph no.38, 39 and 41 of which reads as under:- “38. There was sufficient material on record to indicate that there were financial transactions between the accused and the complainant, her husband and son. On dishonour of cheques 3 Cr.M.P. No.3008 of 2022 issued by the complainant’s husband and son, proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were already initiated by the accused. All family members of the complainant were living in the same house. The brother of the complainant’s husband and his wife, in their statements before the IO have admitted monetary transactions of his brother with the accused. The statements before the IO of both Nikesh Kumar and Smt Bina Vishnoi have already been extracted above, which were part of the case diary and was material which ought to have been looked into which was submitted by the IO in the final report. 39. The fact is that no medical examination was got done on the date of incident or even on the next day or on 7-11-2015, when the IO asked the complainant and her husband to get done the medical examination. Subsequently it was done on 20-11-2015, which was wholly irrelevant. Apart from bald assertions made by the complainant that all the accused have raped her, there was nothing which could have led the courts to form an opinion that the present case is a fit case of prosecution which ought to be launched. We are conscious that the statement given by the prosecutrix/complainant under Section 164 CrPC is not to be lightly brushed away but the statement was required to be considered along with antecedents, facts and circumstances as noted above. 41. Inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the categories as illustratively enumerated by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] . Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or harassment. When there are materials to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceeding under Category 7 as enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , which is to the following effect: (SCC p. 379, para 102) “102. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” Above Category 7 is clearly attracted in the facts of the present case. Although, the High Court has noted the judgment of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , but did not advert to the relevant facts of the present case, materials on which final report was submitted by the IO. We, thus, are fully satisfied that the present is a fit case where the High Court ought to have 4 Cr.M.P. No.3008 of 2022 exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the criminal proceedings.” It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that when there are materials to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court can quash the proceeding under Category 7 as enumerated in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. 7. It is next submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that in this case, the FIR has been registered after a delay of five days as though the alleged occurrence took place on 22.04.2022 but the FIR was lodged on 27.04.2022 without any plausible explanation for the delay in lodgment of the FIR. It is then submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is one of the power of attorney holders of a property which was owned and possessed by his brother and after his death, his wife owned and possessed the said property and in the said property, the informant was kept as a tenant in the outhouse and on 09.03.2022, the wife of the petitioner being the power of attorney holder filed a petition under Section 19 of Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011 against the informant and her husband for her eviction from the rented premises. It is then submitted that hence, the present case is actuated with malice as this case has been instituted as a counter blast of the said eviction suit filed by the wife of the 5 Cr.M.P. No.3008 of 2022 petitioner against the informant. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 25.06.2022 in connection with POCSO Case No.11 of 2022 arising out of Madhupur (Mahila) P.S. Case No.08 of 2022, passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act cases, Deoghar be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand opposes the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 25.06.2022 in connection with POCSO Case No.11 of 2022 arising out of Madhupur (Mahila) P.S. Case No.08 of 2022, passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act cases, Deoghar and submits that nowhere in the petition or in the annexures there to, the case number of the alleged eviction case has been mentioned. It is next submitted that by learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that there is no material in the record that the informant was aware about any such case, if at all, the same has been filed before institution of the FIR of the present case. It is also submitted by learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner and the allegation of the informant is supported by inter alia the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the minor victim girl wherein she has explicitly stated about the heinous offence committed by the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the facts of this case being entirely different from the facts of Vineet Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & 6 Cr.M.P. No.3008 of 2022 Anr. (supra) wherein there was admitted financial transaction between the accused and the complainant, her husband and her son and the complainant’s husband and his wife in their statement before the I.O. of that case has admitted the money transaction of the brother with the accused; hence, the ratio of that case is not applicable to the present case. It is lastly submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 9. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here