Farmer’s Training Centre Campus, Sector-2, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi v. 1. The State of Jharkhand, and 2. Bhavesh Kr. Singh S/o- Shiv Nandan Singh
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.4213 of 2018 ------ 1. Kunj Bihari Pratap @ K.B. Pratap, aged about 42 years, S/O Uday Pratap 2. Himanshu Shekhar Srivastava @ Himanshu Srivastava, aged about 50 years S/O Shri Harihar Prasad Srivastava, both are employee of Jharkhand State Co-operative Milk Federation Ltd., Address: - Farmer’s Training Centre Campus, Sector-2, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, and 2. Bhavesh Kr. Singh S/o- Shiv Nandan Singh, Resident of Indra Nagar, Itki Road, P.S.-Pandra, P.O.-Pandra O.P., Dist.-Ranchi. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No.2
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Mohan Kr. Dubey, Advocate : Mr. Saket Kumar, Addl.P.P. : Mr. Rajni Kant Ojha, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 15.07.2019 passed in connection with Sadar (Khelgaon) P.S. Case No.248 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2523 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 323, 504, 506, 379 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 1 Cr. M.P. No.4213 of 2018 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the meanwhile, after investigation of the case, charge sheet has been submitted inter alia against the petitioners for having committed the offence under Section 341, 323, 504, 506 & 34 of Indian Penal Code and the learned Magistrate has also taken cognizance of the said offences vide order dated 15.07.2019 on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by police. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations against the petitioners are false. The cognizance has been taken by the learned JMFC- XXII, Ranchi in routine manner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of International Advanced Research Centre for Power Metallurgy and New Materials (ARCI) and Others v. Nimra Cerglass Technics (P) Ltd. and Another reported in (2016) 1 SCC 348 paragraph-25 of which reads as under:- “25. The above decisions reiterate the well-settled principles that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, it is not for the High Court to appreciate the evidence and its truthfulness or sufficiency inasmuch as it is the function of the trial court. The High Court's inherent powers, be it, civil or criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose and that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. If the averments in the complaint do not constitute an offence, the Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the interest of justice.” submits that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. It is next submitted that this case has been instituted to persecute the petitioners because of a commercial dispute, hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed. 2 Cr. M.P. No.4213 of 2018 6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of having committed hurt to the informant and his driver, wrongfully restraining the informant and his driver, criminally intimidating the informant and his driver and also intentionally insulting the informant and his driver with intent to provoke breach of peace. The allegations against the petitioner were found to be true during the investigation of the case and on the basis of same, the learned Magistrate has already taken cognizance. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that in case of taking cognizance of an offence based upon the police report, the Magistrate is not required to record any reason as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in (2019) 20 SCC 539 paragraph-23 of which reads as under:- “23. Insofar as taking cognizance based on the police report is concerned, the Magistrate has the advantage of the charge-sheet, statement of witnesses and other evidence collected by the police during the investigation. Investigating officer/SHO collects the necessary evidence during the investigation conducted in compliance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and in accordance with the rules of investigation. Evidence and materials so collected are sifted at the level of the investigating officer and thereafter, charge- sheet was filed. In appropriate cases, opinion of the Public Prosecutor is also obtained before filing the charge-sheet. The court thus has the advantage of the police report along with the materials placed before it by the police. Under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, where the Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence upon a police report and the 3 Cr. M.P. No.4213 of 2018 Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate directs issuance of process. In case of taking cognizance of an offence based upon the police report, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing the process. In cases instituted on a police report, the Magistrate is only required to pass an order issuing summons to the accused. Such an order of issuing summons to the accused is based upon subject to satisfaction of the Magistrate considering the police report and other documents and satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In a case based upon the police report, at the stage of issuing the summons to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record any reason. In case, if the charge-sheet is barred by law or where there is lack of jurisdiction or when the charge-sheet is rejected or not taken on file, then the Magistrate is required to record his reasons for rejection of the charge-sheet and for not taking it on file.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. It is also a settled principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by the high court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C as has been reiterated in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594, the relevant portion of which reads as under:- “Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering. (Emphasis supplied) 9. It is also a settled principle of law that in exercise of power under Section 482 of CrPC, the genuine prosecution cannot be stifled with as has been held in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781. 4 Cr. M.P. No.4213 of 2018 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of being in furtherance of common intention of causing hurt to the informant and his driver, wrongfully restraining them, criminally intimidating them and intentionally insulting them to provoke breach of peace and the said allegations was found to be true by the police during the investigation of the case and finding the said offences having been made out against the petitioners, police submitted charge sheet and on the basis of the police report vide order dated 15.07.2019, the learned JMFC, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the said offences. It is pertinent to mention here that merely because there was a commercial dispute that does not confer any right upon petitioners to take law on to their own hands and to commit offences which has been found to be true against the petitioners; in the investigation conducted by the police. 11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the learned JMFC, Ranchi in G.R. Case No.2523 of 2017 corresponding to Sadar (Khelgaon) P.S. Case No.248 of 2017 or for quashing the entire criminal proceeding. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed. 12. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted vide order dated 15.02.2021, is vacated. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 13th of December, 2024 AFR/ Abhiraj 5 Cr. M.P. No.4213 of 2018