Court quashed a criminal proceeding initiated by taking cognizance under Section 505 IPC for impersonating and obtaining a bank statement. Holding ingredients absent, the order was set aside and matter remitted.
Cognizance dated 22.08.2017 set aside; matter remitted to pass fresh order.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2940 of 2017
Dinesh Kumar Agarwal @ Dinesh Agarwal ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Pawan Kumar Agarwal ..... … Opposite Parties
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Chamaria, Advocate.
07/ 06.04.2022 Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Chamaria, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.
-2-
of the complainant and his wife with dishonest intention to harass the complainant and his family members at the strength of alleged proposed accused no.2 ( against whom no summons are issued by the learned Magistrate ) being an "ITO" though as matter of fact the proposed accused no. 2 is an Indian Revenue Service officer Posted in Mumbai as Deputy Commissioner of Income tax. It has also been alleged that the proposed accused no.2 at the strength of his alleged post of ‘Income Tax Officer’ and in connivance with the accused no. 1 and other are abusing, assaulting and threatens the complainant repeatedly to kill and implicate him in false criminal cases. On the basis of complaint, SA of the complainant, evidence of the enquiry witness and documents available on record, the learned court below vide order dated 22.08.2017 took cognizance under Section 505 Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.
-3-
in place of worship, etc. These are the ingredients for taking cognizance under Section 505 I.P.C.
8. On perusal of the complaint, it transpires that the ingredients of Section 505 are absent and no fraudulent action is there on behalf of the petitioner. Moreover the O.P. No. 2 on SA has stated that he has occurred no loss, pursuant to the action of the petitioner.
9. In view of the above fact and considering the cognizance order, where the ingredients of Section 505 IPC are absent, the cognizance order will not survive.
10. Accordingly, the cognizance dated 22.08.2017, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, in connection with C.P. Case No. 487 of 2017, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, is hereby, set aside. The matter is remitted back to the concerned Court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the ingredients of Section 505 IPC are attracted to the petitioner's conduct of obtaining a bank account statement.
Whether the cognizance order dated 22.08.2017 survives absent their presence of statutory requirements.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dinesh Kumar Agarwal @ Dinesh Agarwal
The State of Jharkhand
Pawan Kumar Agarwal
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
