Dismissed

Ajit Kumar Sharma And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC14 May 2019Cr.M.P./1520/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed a petition for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court held that a counter-blast case filed by the petitioner or the drop of another similar complaint does not render the current complaint frivolous. The Court relied on Binod Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, stating that quashing is warranted only if the complaint discloses no offence.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing criminal proceedings dismissed; petitioners allowed to agitate pleas below.

Ajit Kumar Sharma And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1520 of 2009

¶3

Ajit Kumar Sharma

¶4

Sanjay Sharma @ Sanju Kumar Sharma

¶5

Mithilesh Sharma @ Mithilesh Kumar

¶6

Birendra Kumar Sharma

¶7

Pinku Sharma

¶8

Naresh Sharma

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Jharkhand

¶11

Kamal Yadav ... … Opposite Parties

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶13

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate Mr. Manindra Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nehru Mahto, A.P.P. -----

¶14

Order No. 07

¶15

Dated: 14.05.2019

¶16

The present petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 10.05.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Hazaribagh in Complaint Case No. 929 of 2005, whereby cognizance of the offences under Sections 147/323/379 I.P.C. has been taken against the petitioners.

¶17

2. The factual background of the case as stated in the complaint case is that on 26.09.2005 at about 1.30 pm, the petitioners along with other co-accused persons came to the tea shop of Suraj Gope situated in front of the court of C.J.M., Hazaribagh and abused him. A scuffle also took place due to which the complainant fell down and the accused persons snatched his PAN card, sales tax certificate and Rs. 635 from his pocket and further threatened him to kill, however, on intervention of the nearby persons, he was saved.

¶18

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant has suppressed the fact that on 27.09.2005, an FIR was lodged by the petitioner no. 1 against the complainant, one Abhayanand Mishra and others vide Sadar P.S Case No. 439 of 2005 for the offences under Sections 341/323/379/504/34 I.P.C. The present case has been instituted in counter blast of the said criminal case filed by the petitioner no. 1 and as such, the same is liable to be quashed. Abhayanand Mishra, a co-accused in the case instituted by the petitioner no. 1, had also filed one criminal case vide Complaint Case No. 931 of 2005 on the same date

¶19

¶20

i.e., on 01.10.2005 making similar allegation, but he did not press the said case and the same was closed by the concerned court below. It is further submitted that both the complainant and Abhayanand Mishra filed the complaint cases for the similar occurrence just to pressurize the petitioner no. 1 to withdraw the case and as such, continuance of the present case will be an abuse of the process of court. It is further submitted that in Sadar P.S Case No. 439 of 2005, the complainant namely, Kamal Yadav (the opposite party no. 2) has been convicted vide judgment dated 20.08.2011 for the offences under Sections 341 and 323 I.P.C. and he has been given the benefit of the provision of Probation of Offenders Act vide order dated 23.08.2011. It is also submitted that on 27.09.2005, the opposite party no. 2 and others also attacked the house of the petitioner no. 1 and at that time his son namely, Sanjay Kumar Sharma (the petitioner no. 2) was there who also lodged an FIR under Sections 143/149/452/341/323/427/504 I.P.C. in connection with G.R. No. 2593/2009 (T.R. No. 1747/2011) and the accused persons of the said case have been convicted and sentenced to undergo three months S.I. vide judgment and order dated 14.12.2011.

¶21

4. The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that a bare perusal of the complaint would prima facie disclose the offences committed by the petitioners and as such, the present criminal proceeding need not be quashed in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that all the grounds raised by the petitioners may be agitated before the court below at an appropriate stage.

¶22

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the present case has been instituted by the opposite party no. 2 in counter blast of Sadar P.S Case No. 439 of 2005 which was lodged on the basis of the written report of the petitioner no. 1.

¶23

6. On perusal of the record, it appears that the allegation of abuse and snatching of articles and money from the pocket of the complainant (the opposite party no. 2) has been confirmed by the inquiry witnesses. Mere fact that one criminal case was filed by the petitioner no. 1 against the opposite party no. 2 cannot be a ground to quash the

¶24

¶25

present criminal proceeding. The learned counsel for the petitioners has given much stress to the argument that one Abhayanand Mishra had also filed a complaint case in connection with the same incident alleged to have occurred on the same day, but the said case was dropped as Abhayanand Mishra did not take interest. However, on perusal of the Complaint Case No. 931 of 2005, it appears that the alleged occurrence had taken place on 26.09.2005 at about 3 pm in the court premises of Hazaribag. The allegation made in the said complaint was that the accused persons assaulted the said complainant and demanded rangdari of Rs. 10,000/- on the point of revolver. Thus, the allegations levelled by the complainant of the present case (the opposite party no. 2) and Abhyanand Mishra prima facie appears to be different having been committed at different point of time. Moreover, the complaint of Abhyanand Mishra was not rejected on merit, rather it was dropped on the ground that the complainant lost his interest in the same.

¶26

7. In the case of “Binod Kumar Vs. State of Bihar” reported

¶27

in (2014) 10 SCC 663 , it has been held as under:

¶28

“ 8. In proceedings instituted on the criminal complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous. It is well settled that the power under Section 482 CrPC should be sparingly invoked with circumspection, it should be exercised to see that the process of law is not abused or misused. The settled principle of law is that at the stage of quashing the complaint/FIR, the High Court is not to embark upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or the genuineness of the allegations made therein.”

¶29

8. The factual plea taken by the petitioners is to be considered at a later stage of the proceeding. The uncontroverted allegation levelled against the petitioners prima facie discloses the alleged offences and as such, the impugned order passed by the court below does not require any interference in exercise of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶30

9. The present petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to agitate all possible plea available with them before the court below at an appropriate stage which shall be dealt with in accordance with law.

¶31

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶32

Manish

Ajit Kumar Sharma And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Kumar Sharma And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shahda Bano And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Dilip Kumar Sharma And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Prem Chandra Jaiswal And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Ravi Raj Pandey Vs State of Jharkhand

Dipan Sahu and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Brahmdeo Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand