Quashed

Arun Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC21 Feb 2022Cr.M.P./794/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Jharkhand allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash a cognizance order dated 16.08.2019. The court held the order was arbitrary and non-compliant with Section 204 Cr.P.C. as it failed to explain liability of petitioners 1 and 3 in a civil contract dispute between petitioner 2 and the opposite party, constituting abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The cognizance order dated 16.08.2019 is quashed and the matter is remitted to the concerned court to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Arun Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 794 of 2020

¶3

Arun Kumar Singh 2. Mrs. Pushpa Singh 3. Satya Prakash ..... … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Fidaur Rahman ..... … Opposite Parties -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI -----For the Petitioners : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Samir Kumar Lall, Advocate.

¶4

¶5

06/ 21.02.2022 Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Samir Kumar Lall, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.

¶6

This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

¶7

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 16.08.2019 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi, whereby cognizance against the petitioners under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken, in connection with Complaint Case No. 3531 of 2018, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi.

¶8

The O.P. No. 2 has filed the present complaint case in the year 2018 for the alleged occurrence of the year 2015-16, stating therein that he entered into an agreement with the petitioner No. 2 for construction work, a schedule was given of construction for which allegedly the petitioner no. 2 had to pay Rs. 37 lacs after completion of agreed work as per the payment terms agreed between the parties. It has been alleged in brief that some work has been done but payment has not been made in accordance with the work, though it has further been accepted that 12 lacs has been received by the complainant but rest amount of construction has not been paid. It has further been stated that in the month of January, 2016 and July 2016 the accused persons were not present at the site and the complainant had constructed 90% of the construction work. It has been alleged in the complaint case that though the complaint initiated work at war footing but the accused No. 1 has mentioned in the complaint is very reluctant from the beginning. In para-9

¶9

-2-

¶10

he has stated that work of construction over both grounds as well as first floor, both roofs have been casted with brick work and thereafter several meetings have been made, but the payment has not been made. When some pressure of request created, the complaint had been beaten by accused along with 4/5 persons, accordingly, the complaint case was filed.

¶11

Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the cognizance order is cryptic one. He submits that there is no compliance of Section 204 Cr.P.C in passing the said order. He further submits that the allegation is purely civil in nature and for that the case has been registered under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. He further submits that in the complaint case, in para-8, it has been disclosed that 90% work has been completed. He also submits that so far as the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are concerned, they have played no role in the agreement, however, cognizance against them has also been taken, however, the agreement is between petitioner No. 2 and O.P. No. 2 only. Accordingly, he submits that the present case is fully covered in the light of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Versus NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. , reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 .

¶12

Mr. Samir Kumar Lall, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 by way of referring the deposition of enquiry witness No. 1, submits that 12 lacs has already been paid to the O.P. No. 2, however, 90% work has already been completed. He also submits that Rs. 14.68 has not been paid to the O.P. No. 2.

¶13

The Court has perused the cognizance order. It has not been disclosed that as to how the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3, rather the subject matter of dispute is only between petitioner No. 2 and O.P. No. 2.

¶14

Sub-section (1) of Section 204 provides that if in the opinion of a Magistrate, who is taking cognizance, there are sufficient ground for proceeding, then he has to issue summons or warrant in the appropriate case, as envisaged in Section 204(1)(a)(b).

¶15

From the reading of the aforesaid Section, it is crystal clear that the application of mind must be reflected in the order of taking cognizance. The order should not be mechanical. Magistrate has to mention at least that there are sufficient materials to proceed against the persons and what are the prima facie materials to proceed against them.

¶16

In the case in hand, there is no disclosure of the fact that as to

¶17

-3-

¶18

how the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are responsible for an agreement, which has been executed between the petitioner No. 2 and O.P. No. 2. Moreover, prima facie it appears that the case is arising out of an agreement for that the criminal proceeding is an abuse of the process of law.

¶19

In view of the above, the cognizance order is not in accordance with law. Accordingly, the order dated 16.08.2019 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi, whereby cognizance against the petitioners under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken, in connection with Complaint Case No. 3531 of 2018, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi, is hereby, quashed.

¶20

The matter is remitted back to the concerned Court to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

¶21

This criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of.

¶22

Amitesh/-

Arun Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saddam Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pooja Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ravi Basak Alias Rabi Basak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajiv Parasar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mrs Harjot Kaur Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Akhay Kumar Mohanty Vs the State of Jharkhand