In Cr. M.P. 2175 of 2014, a single judge of the High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's prayer to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The court held that specific material in the case diary implicated the petitioner and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Cr. M.P. No.2175 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.2175 of 2014
------
Radhey Shyam Prasad, S/o Sri Mahadeo Sah, Resident of Village:Makdampur, Ram Mandir, P.O:- Tatanagar, P.S:- Parsudih, Dist:- East Singhbhum (Jamshedpur)-831002 … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance Bureau
… Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Murari Singh, Advocate For the Vigilance Bureau : Mr. Suraj Verma, Spl. P.P.
------
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties through video conferencing.
1
Cr. M.P. No.2175 of 2014
F.I.R. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a Junior Engineer. It is also submitted that in the F.I.R., specific allegation has been made against the Executive Engineer. It is further submitted that all the repairing works were done by the contractors selected and appointed by the Executive Engineer and the petitioner got the work executed satisfactorily as per the estimate and there is no complaint whatsoever against him and the due certificates of satisfactorily completion of work has been issued by the occupants of the quarters and buildings which were cross-verified by the then Assistant Engineer and the Executive Engineer and only thereafter payment has been made. It is next submitted that the lodging of the F.I.R. is a false table work and vindictive approach on the part of the informant because the informant claims to have verified 22 sites within just nine hours and proper verification of the work by the petitioner during such short time is impossible. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been put under suspension in October, 2011 but no proceeding was initiated against him till filing of this petition. It is also submitted that the learned court below has taken cognizance of the offence in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind. It is further submitted that the learned Special Judge ought to have appreciated that work alleged to have been executed, was temporary repairing works for which satisfactory work done certificates and occupancy certificates issued by the occupants have been issued.
2
Cr. M.P. No.2175 of 2014
is submitted that as the case of the petitioner stands on better footing than Naresh Singh, so the petitioner is also entitled to get the same relief as Naresh Singh. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 17.11.2011 passed in connection with Special Case No.25 of 2002 arising out of Vigilance (Chatra) P.S. Case No.53 of 2002 passed by learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi be quashed.
“8. Having considered the details of allegations made in the complaint petition, the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as materials on which the appellant placed reliance which were called for by the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate, in our considered opinion, committed no error in summoning the accused persons. At the stage of cognizance and summoning the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence, or, in other words, to find out whether prima facie case
3
Cr. M.P. No.2175 of 2014
has been made out for summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the learned Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor is he required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials will lead to conviction or not. “ (Emphasis supplied)
that at the stage of cognizance, the Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor is he required to evaluate the merits of the material or evidence of the complainant and the Magistrate is not required to undertake the exercise to find out at the stage of taking cognizance whether the materials will lead to conviction or not. It is further submitted by Mr. Verma that the contention of the petitioner that the satisfactorily work completion certificate were issued by the occupants or for that matter, the petitioner discharged his duties satisfactorily are the defence of the petitioner which is open to be taken during the trial and certainly that cannot be considered by this Court as a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding or for that matter, the order taking cognizance by the trial court. Hence, it is submitted that the instant petition, being without any merit, be rejected.
4
Cr. M.P. No.2175 of 2014
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 08th September, 2021. AFR/ Animesh
5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceeding and order taking cognizance can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC given specific material implicating the petitioner in excess payments.
Whether the issuance of satisfactory completion certificates by occupants constitutes a defense ground for quashing the proceeding before trial.
Whether this case is fit for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding under Section 482 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mithilesh Prasad Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand through A.C.B.Explained¶24
Mithilesh Prasad Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand through A.C.B. Cr.M.P. No.2755 of 2020
Sonu Gupta Vs. Deepak Gupta & OthersExplained¶24
Sonu Gupta Vs. Deepak Gupta & Others (2015) 3 SCC 424 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Radhey Shyam Prasad
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance Bureau
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court