Manish Kumar Sinha @ Manish … v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Block Development Officer, Kanke, Ranchi 3. The
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr.) No. 778 of 2023 Manish Kumar Sinha @ Manish …. Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Block Development Officer, Kanke, Ranchi 3. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Ranchi. 4. The Block Panchayat Raj Officer, Kanke, Ranchi. CORAM :
Legal Reasoning
SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ ----- …. Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s) For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Pratyush Shounikya, Advocate. : Mr. Sandeep Verma, AC to Sr. SC-III ------ 4/12.01.2024: Heard the parties. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR being Sadar (Khelgaon) P.S. Case No. 249 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. No. 2872 of 2018, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, on the ground that no criminal offence is committed by the petitioner. 3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.M. Datta versus State of Gujarat & Another reported in (2001) 7 SCC 659 at paragraph 9 thereof, while concurring with the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] at paragraph 103 thereof, has held that Criminal proceedings, in the normal course of events ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage, unless the same amounts to an abuse of the process of law. It has been further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there cannot possibly be any guiding factor as to which investigation ought to be scuttled at the initial stages and investigations which ought not to be so scuttled. The first information report needs to be considered and if the answer is found on a perusal thereof which leads to disclosure of an offence even broadly, law courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere. Paragraph 9 of the judgment in the case of S.M. Datta (supra) reads as under: - “9. We respectfully record our concurrence therewith. Criminal proceedings, in the normal course of events ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage, unless the same amounts to an abuse of the process of law. In the normal course of events thus, quashing of a complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. The genuineness of the averments in the FIR cannot possible be gone into and the document shall have to be read as a whole so as to decipher the intent of the maker thereof. It is not a document which requires decision with exactitude, neither is it a document which equires mathematical accuracy and nicety, but the same 2. should be able to communicate or indicative of disclosure of an offence broadly and in the event the said test stands satisfied, the question relating to the quashing of a complaint would not arise. It is in this context, however, one feature ought to be noticed at this juncture that there cannot possibly be any guiding factor as to which investigation ought to be scuttled at the initial stages and investigations which ought not to be so scuttled. The first information report needs to be considered and if the answer is found on a perusal thereof which leads to disclosure of an offence even broadly, law courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere.” 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 at paragraph 103 thereof has held as under: - “103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent power do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 5. Thus from the reading of the above observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is to the effect that if from bare perusal of complaint, an offence is made out, criminal proceeding cannot be throttled at the very initial stage. 6. 7. Considering the aforesaid proposition, I have gone through the FIR. The FIR has been lodged by the Block Panchayat Raj Officer, Kanke, Ranchi. He has alleged that this petitioner is a contractor. On some orders issued from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, he made some interpolation and annexed some documents, which has reflected in the estimate, which was not sanctioned by the authority. As per the FIR, the prime allegation is that the petitioner has interpolated the work orders by annexing some documents, which were not there with the originals. 8. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has received the work order and executed the same, for which, he is relying upon Annexure- 2 series. 9. Whether the petitioner received the work orders and in what conditions are the matter of investigation and later on trial. At the stage of quashing of an FIR, these defence of the petitioner cannot be looked into. Further more, Annexure-2 3. series are some documents, genuineness of which, are yet to be ascertained. 10. The police is still investigating the case. But from perusal of FIR, I find that criminal offence is made out. Thus, there is no ground to interfere with this FIR. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 11. Since this FIR is of the year 2018, it is expected that the investigation should be concluded at the earliest. Anu/-Cp2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)