Prosenjit Banerjee, aged about 40 years, son of S. K. Banerjee, resident of 16 v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Abhishek Anand, son of Sri Anil Kumar Singh
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3516 of 2021 ------ Prosenjit Banerjee, aged about 40 years, son of S. K. Banerjee, resident of 16, Barodakata Road, Purba Sindhi, Dumdum, P.O.- Ghughudanga, P.S.- Dumdum, District- Kolkata (West Bengal) … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Abhishek Anand, son of Sri Anil Kumar Singh, resident of A 14, D.V.C. Township, K.T.P.S. Banjhedih, P.O.- Koderma, P.S.- Jainagar, Opposite Parties District- Koderma … ------ For the Petitioner For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Mr. Akchansh Kishore, Advocate Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl. P.P. ------ 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 proceedings in connection with Jainagar P.S. Case No.218 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Section 420, 406, 477, 120B, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66 of the Cyber Crime Act. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the complainant works in the H.R. and Administration Post of Punj Lloyd Limited Company. The petitioner was the Project Manager of the said company. The allegation is that the 1 Cr. M.P. No.3516 of 2021 petitioner, in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons on 10.09.2016 at about 1:30 pm, committed theft of the Data of three years regarding billing and very essential data from the computer provided by the company to the co- accused persons and caused loss to the tune of about Rs.200 crores. The petitioner has also committed theft of the Laptop of the company on 02.09.2019 and fled away. The matter was reported to the Headquarter of the company. The company issued absconding letter to the petitioner and the co-accused persons but neither the petitioner nor the co-accused persons returned back to their work nor contacted over mobile phone. Alleging that by such acts, the petitioner and the co-accused persons by way of criminal conspiracy and in furtherance of their common intention, committed theft of the Data of the company and by fraudulent and dishonest intention with intent to cause damage and injury to the complainant, destroyed the documents of the company and committed mischief in respect of such documents. The complainant filed Complaint Case No.1552 of 2019. Though originally the complaint was not supported by any affidavit subsequently by an affidavit dated 13.11.2019, the contents of the complaint petition has been supported by an affidavit. After such filing of affidavit in support of the complaint, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 14.11.2019, forwarded the complaint to the Officer In-Charge of Jainagar Police Station for registration of the case and to investigate the case. The investigation of the case is going on at present. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Babu Venkatesh & Others vs. 2 Cr. M.P. No.3516 of 2021 State of Karnataka & Another reported in (2022) 5 SCC 639 paragraph-28 of which reads as under:- “28. From the perusal of the complaint it can be seen that, the complainant Respondent 2 himself has made averments with regard to the filing of the original suit. In any case, when the complaint was not supported by an affidavit, the Magistrate ought not to have entertained the application under Section 156(3)CrPC. The High Court has also failed to take into consideration the legal position as has been enunciated by this Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. [Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 294 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 153] , and has dismissed the petitions by merely observing that serious allegations are made in the complaint.” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that when the complaint was not supported by an affidavit, the learned Magistrate ought not have entertained the application filed under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. 5. It is next submitted that the learned Magistrate has failed to adhere to the principle of law settled in the case of Priyanka Srivastava & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 paragraph-30 of which reads as under:- “30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) CrPC applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of the said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores.” (Emphasis supplied) 3 Cr. M.P. No.3516 of 2021 and submits that as there is no compliance of Section 154 (1) and 154 (3) of Cr.P.C. while filing the petition under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate ought not have referred the complaint for registration of the F.I.R.. 6. It is next submitted that the whole process of the lodging of the criminal case is void ab initio. It is then submitted that there is huge monetary dues owed by the company to the petitioner, hence, this false case has been foisted against the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that therefor the prayer, as made in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 7. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Jainagar P.S. Case No.218 of 2019 and submits that though in the formal F.I.R. one of the offences committed has been mentioned as Section 66 of Cyber Crime Act but in fact the relevant Section is Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000; as has rightly been mentioned in the endorsement regarding registration of Jainagar P.S. Case No.218 of 2019 as mentioned in page-28 of the brief, by the Officer In-Charge of Jainagar Police Station but erroneous mentioning of an offence while drawing of the formal F.I.R. is of not any significant consequence. It is next submitted that before the case was referred to the Magistrate, unlike the cases of Babu Venkatesh & Others vs. State of Karnataka & Another (supra) or Priyanka Srivastava & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (supra), the complaint was supported by the affidavit. Further, it is submitted that unlike the case of Babu Venkatesh & Others vs. State of Karnataka & Another (supra) or Priyanka Srivastava & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others 4 Cr. M.P. No.3516 of 2021 (supra), in this case no application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. was filed and undisputedly the contents of the F.I.R. make out cognizable offences. So, under such circumstances when the F.I.R. has already been registered and the investigation of the case is going on, the legitimate prosecution of the petitioner for the offence of serious nature ought not be stifled by quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Jainagar P.S. Case No.218 of 2019. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. 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 the undisputed fact remains that unlike the cases of Babu Venkatesh & Others vs. State of Karnataka & Another (supra) and Priyanka Srivastava & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (supra), the complaint of this case was supported by an affidavit before the order dated 14.11.2019 was passed by the S.D.J.M., Koderma; referring the complaint to the Officer In- Charge of Jainagar Police Station to register a case and investigate and thereafter to submit Final Report. Unlike the case of Babu Venkatesh & Others vs. State of Karnataka & Another (supra) and Priyanka Srivastava & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (supra), in this case no prayer was ever made by the complainant under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C nor has any application, under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C, been filed. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that as the complaint was supported by an affidavit and no petition under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. was filed in this case and the undisputed fact remains that the allegations made in the F.I.R., are considered to be true in their entirety, make out cognizable 5 Cr. M.P. No.3516 of 2021 offences punishable in law for which the F.I.R. of this case has been registered; hence, this Court keeping in view the settled principle of law that the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure should not stifle a legitimate prosecution as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781 and the settled principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to get into the appreciation of the evidence of the particular case as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Another vs. Akhil Sharda & Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Jainagar P.S. Case No.218 of 2019. 9. 10. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed In view of the disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., interim order granted earlier vide order dated 23.02.2022, stands vacated. 11. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 08th of May, 2024 AFR/ Animesh-Saroj 6 Cr. M.P. No.3516 of 2021