Allowed

Anshu Akansha Alias Anshu Akanchha v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Mar 2023Cr.M.P./163/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition invoking inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 354 and 504 IPC. The Court held that the case involved a civil dispute with an unexplained FIR delay and allegations of verbal abuse, falling under the Bhajan Lal category for abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 23.09.2021 is quashed so far as it relates to the petitioner.

Anshu Akansha Alias Anshu Akanchha Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Cr.M.P. No.163 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 163 of 2022

¶4

Anshu Akansha @ Anshu Akanchha, aged about 26 years, d/o Birendra Sahu, resident of Sisai Road, Gandhi Nagar, P.O. & P.S. + Dist.- Gumla

¶5

.... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Nand Lal, son of Late Ganpat Lal, resident of Sisai Road Gumla, P.O. & P.S. + Dist.- Gumla

¶9

…. Opp. Parties

¶10

P R E S E N T

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl. P.P.

¶13

By the Court:-

¶14

Heard the parties.

¶15

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 23.09.2021 passed in connection with G.R. Case No.690 of 2021 corresponding to Gumla P.S. Case No.380 of 2019 whereby and where under, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 452/354/506/504/34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶16

The allegation against the petitioner made out in the First Information Report is that the petitioner is the neighbour of the informant and the petitioner and her mother are illegally claiming the land of the informant. There is further allegation that the father of the petitioner with the help of the amin got carried out

¶17

¶18

Cr.M.P. No.163 of 2022

¶19

the wrong measurement and for the same, the informant filed a case in which the father of the petitioner has appeared. The informant admits that his father has sold 7 decimals of land to the grandfather of the petitioner wherein a wrong description of land was mentioned. On detection of the wrong description of land, an agreement was entered into between the father of the informant and the grandfather of the petitioner and only allegation is that on 19.11.2019, the petitioner inter alia abused the informant and his family members with filthy language and entered into the house of the informant after scaling over the boundary wall. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that admittedly a civil dispute vide Misc. Appeal No.18/19 is going on between the father of the petitioner and the informant in the court of Deputy Commissioner Land Reforms, Gumla.

¶20

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land in question in respect of which dispute is going on between the parties, belongs to the petitioner and her family members but this criminal proceeding has been filed against the petitioner with mala fide and this F.I.R. has been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the accused with a view to spite her due to private and personal grudge. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though there is an inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. but there is absolutely no explanation furnished in the F.I.R. for the delay and the delay is because of the fact that the allegation against the petitioner is false and no occurrence as alleged by the informant has ever taken

¶21

¶22

Cr.M.P. No.163 of 2022

¶23

place and this case has been filed with intention to pressurize the petitioner and her family members to withdraw from the civil dispute between the parties. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a female and there is no allegation of any teasing against her. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has completed her M.Sc. and the continuance of a criminal proceeding will jeopardize her career. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , paragraph no.102 of which reads as under:-

¶24

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶25

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶26

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶27

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence

¶28

¶29

Cr.M.P. No.163 of 2022

¶30

collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶31

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶32

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶33

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶34

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

¶35

and submits that this case squarely falls under the category (7) of the illustrations given in the case of State of Haryana and others

¶36

v. Bhajan Lal and others (supra).

¶37

It is lastly submitted that the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 23.09.2021 passed in connection with G.R. Case No.690 of 2021 corresponding to Gumla P.S. Case No.380 of 2019 be quashed.

¶38

Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand defended the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate and submits that the learned Magistrate has categorically mentioned in paragraphs

¶39

¶40

Cr.M.P. No.163 of 2022

¶41

which the prima facie case appears against the petitioner but fairly submits that there is admittedly civil dispute between the parties.

¶42

Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that there is admitted civil dispute between the family of the petitioner and the informant as well as unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. and the nature of allegation made against the petitioner of only abusing the informant and the members of his family with filthy language in the considered opinion of this Court brings the allegation against the petitioner under category (7) of the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others (supra).

¶43

Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of the court.

¶44

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 23.09.2021 passed in connection with G.R. Case No.690 of 2021 corresponding to Gumla P.S. Case No.380 of 2019 so far as it relates to the petitioner only is quashed.

¶45

In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.

¶46

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶47

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 16^th March, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

Anshu Akansha Alias Anshu Akanchha v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anshu Akansha Alias Anshu Akanchha 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

Chandi Charan Chakravorty Vs Rasik Manjhi

Rajesh Jaiswal Vs State of Jharkhand through C B I

Samsher Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhadur Dubey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jaffar Shekh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Naresh Kr Mahto Alias Naresh Kumar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand