Quashed

Abhijit Sinha v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Oct 2021Cr.M.P./2543/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This ordinance quashes the order passing a non-bailable warrant and the order directing issuance of section 82 process. The High Court held the impugned orders invalid as they were inconsistent with a prior order and lacked requisite statutory satisfaction.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order dated 24.06.2019 issuing non-bailable warrant and the order dated 23.09.2019 directing issuance of section 82 process.

Abhijit Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶3

Cr.M.P. No.2543 of 2019

¶4

----

¶5

Abhijit Sinha @ Abhijeet Sinha, aged about 42 years, son of Sri Birendra Kumar Sinha, resident of Holding No.256, Zone No.1, Das Para, Back side of Hari Mandir, Birsanagar, PO and PS Birsanagar, Town-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum (Jharkhand) ….. Petitioner

¶6

-- Versus --

¶7

The State of Jharkhand …... Opposite Party

¶8

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶10

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Mr. Akchhansh Kishore, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Vijay Kant Sinha, Advocate

¶11

¶12

4 /04.10.2021 Heard Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Vijay Kant Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

¶13

This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.06.2019, whereby non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner in connection with Telco (Birsanagar) P.S.Case No.385/2014 (corresponding to G.R.No.2917/2014) has been issued against the petitioner. During pendency of this petition process under section 82 Cr.P.C has been directed to be issued against the petitioner by order dated 23.09.2019 which was challenged by way of filing I.A.No.9800 of 2019 and this Court by order dated 23.10.2019 allowed the said I.A thus, the order dated 23.09.2019 is also under challenge. The F.I.R was registered stating therein, that:

¶14

“That the basis of the instant F.I.R., registered as Telco (Birsanagar) P.S.Case No.385 of 2014 on 10.09.2014 is Complaint Case No.3063 of 2014 which was filed by the informant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur with a prayer to send the complaint to the concerned P.S. In terms of section 156(1) Cr.P.C for registration and investigation. The said complaint was ordered to be

¶15

¶16

transmitted under section 156(3) Cr.P.C by the Judicial Magisrate for registration of F.I.R and investigation of the matter. It has been alleged by the informant that the accused was in urgent need of money for which he agreed to sell his landed property bearing Plot No.1694 admeasuring more or less 5 decimals situated in the District East Singhbhum in Mouza Hurlong, PS Birsanagar under Thana No.1201 Khata No.217 to the informant for a total consideration amount of Rs.13,71,100/- which the informant also agreed to purchase. It has been alleged that the informant paid Rs.7,71,100/- as an advance through cheque drawn in favour of the accused and cash on the following dates:

¶17

S.No.	Amount	Cash/	Darwn On	Date
	(in Rs.)	Cheque No.
1.	40,000/-	Cash		16.12.13
2.	5,100/-	069104	PNB, Golmuri	09.12.13
3.	1,26,000/-	069105	PNB, Golmuri	16.12.13
4.	1,00,000/-	069106	PNB, Golmuri	16.12.13
5.	1,00,000/-	069108	PNB, Golmuri	16.12.13
6.	1,00,000/-	069109	PNB, Golmuri	16.12.13
7.	1,00,000/-	069110	PNB, Golmuri	16.12.13
8.	1,00,000/-	069112	PNB, Golmuri	10.02.14
9.	50,000/-	069117	PNB, Golmuri	28.02.14
10.	50,000/-	069125	PNB, Golmuri	29.04.14
Total-	7,71,	100/-

¶18

It has been alleged that the receipts of the aforesaid sum has been acknowledged by the petitioner. It has been further alleged that the petitioner also executed an agreement for sale on 16.12.2013 in favour of the informant by stating that the possession of the land would be delivered to the informant after taking balance amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. It has been alleged that the petitioner was not ready to execute sale deed in favour of the informant within six months of sale agreement as per the clause 10 of the said agreement and upon being followed and chased the petitioner kept on procrastinating the registry with ulterior motives. It has been further alleged that the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 14.07.2014 to the informant incorrectly stating therein that the informant paid only Rs.3,31,000/-. It has been alleged that factually the informant paid Rs.7,71,100/- to the petitioner as would be apparent from the PNB Bank Statement showing the encashment of cheque

¶19

¶20

of Rs.7,31,000/- by the petitioner from the informant’s account besides acknowledgement of Rs.40,000/- in cash on 16.12.2013 by the petitioner. It has been further alleged that the informant was ready to pay the rest amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. It has been further alleged that the petitioner has sold the aforesaid piece of land to someone else on 11.07.2014 by registered sale deed dated 11.07.2014 at higher consideration the fact whereof was became known to the informant on 08.08.2014, thus, it has been alleged that the petitioner has misappropriated complaint’s money to the tune of Rs.7,71,100/-.

¶21

With the aforesaid allegations, accordingly, the FIR was registered under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC implicating the petitioner as sole accused.”

¶22

Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner at the outset submits that the petitioner has earlier moved before this Court in Cr.M.P No.2044 of 2015 challenging the entire criminal proceeding. The order by which non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued which is pending and in that case earlier non-bailable warrant order was passed and the petitioner was directed co-operate with the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer was required to issue notice under section 41A Cr.P.C. He submits that pursuant to that order, 41A notice was given to the petitioner which was recorded in letter dated 21.06.2019 by the said I.O, however, by the said application against non-bailable warrant has been prayed before the concerned court on the ground that the petitioner is not co-operating. He further submits that the petitioner is residing at the same place along with family members and the petitioner is working as Area Sales Manager (Bridge Capital Services) and in view of the nature of job the petitioner is required to go one place to another. The police went to the place of the petitioner and the petitioner was not found there.

¶23

This Court vide order dated 23.10.2019 directed the State to file affidavit by the I.O stating therein that when section 41 notice was issued to the petitioner as contained in Annexure-3. Pursuant to that an affidavit has been filed and in paragraph no.15 it has been disclosed that the I.O went to the place of the petitioner and he was not found there. Paragraph no.15 is silent with regard to the order passed by this Court dated 23.10.2019. This affidavit is not in

¶24

¶25

compliance of the order dated 23.10.2019. The petitioner is residing at the same place alongwith his family and only at the time of visit of the police he was not present there in terms of nature of his job, it cannot be said that the petitioner was evading the query of the police or not cooperating with the police and on the basis of that, the learned court has issued direction of issuing non-bailable warrant against the petitioner and subsequently by order dated 24.06.2019 section 82 process has been issued. On perusal of order dated 23.10.2019 it transpires that the learned court has not recorded his satisfaction as to how he was satisfied to issue such order. There is no indication of time and place as it is mandatory in terms of Form-IV Cr.P.C.

¶26

Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 24.06.2019 and 23.09.2019 in connection with Telco (Birsanagar) P.S.Case No.385/2014 (corresponding to G.R.No.2917/2014) pending in the court J.M. 1^st Class, Jamshedpur are quashed .

¶27

Cr.M.P. No.2543 of 2019 stands disposed of.

¶28

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)

¶29

SI/,

Abhijit Sinha v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhijit Sinha v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxman Prasd Vs the State of Jharkhand

Radhika Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lakhwinder Pal Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shashi Bhushan Samad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Indrajeet Kaur Alias Monalisha and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Balbir Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand