Allowed

Kamlesh Kanodia v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Jharkhand HC9 Nov 2023Cr.M.P./246/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Jharkhand allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The court observed the petitioner was not the owner of the premises where a mobile tower existed, and dues had been paid by the respective company. It held continued proceedings would amount to an abuse of process and quashed them.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 06.01.2014 are quashed.

Kamlesh Kanodia Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

1 Cr.M.P. No. 246 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr.M.P. No. 246 of 2014

¶4

Kamlesh Kanodia … Petitioner

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Narendra Kumar, Electric Junior Engineer, Dumka

¶8

… Opposite Parties

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhinesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate

¶11

05/09.11.2023 Heard Mr. Abhinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Lily

¶12

Sahay, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶13

This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 06.01.2014 in connection with Hansdiha/Jarmundi P.S. Case No.49/2013, dated 14.03.2013, G.R. No.353/2013, corresponding to Special (Elec) Case No.16/2013, pending in the Court of the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge, Dumka.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations are made that electricity of cost of Rs.1 Lakh has been stolen by hooking the wire. He further submits that the petitioner is not the owner of the said premises, in which, one mobile tower was installed. He also submits that the police has investigated the matter and final form has been submitted in favour of the petitioner, however, the learned Court without providing any reason of differing with the final form, has taken cognizance against the petitioner. He refers Annexure-5 of the petition and submits that the

¶15

2 Cr.M.P. No. 246 of 2014

¶16

Executive Engineer, Dumka has issued show-cause to the Assistant Engineer, Basukinath and asked why the petitioner has been made accused in the FIR. He further refers the letter annexed at Annexure-6 of the petition and submits that by the said letter, it was communicated to the petitioner that efforts for impleading M/s Tower Vision Pvt. Ltd. in the FIR has been taken. He further submits that the said company has already deposited the amount in question.

¶17

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that in view of Annexure-5, it appears that inadvertently the petitioner has been made accused.

¶18

Learned counsel for the State by way of referring paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State submits that the Executive Engineer has written so, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

In view of the above, it appears that the petitioner is not the owner of the premises in question. The said company whose tower was there, has already paid the dues. Annexures-5 and 6 of the petition are letters of the Electricity Department, which are in favour of the petitioner.

¶20

Further, reason of differing with the final form is not disclosed in the order taking cognizance. To allow the case to continue will amount to abuse of process of law.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid facts, the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 06.01.2014 in connection with Hansdiha/Jarmundi P.S. Case No.49/2013, dated 14.03.2013, G.R. No.353/2013, corresponding to Special (Elec) Case No.16/2013, pending in

¶22

3 Cr.M.P. No. 246 of 2014

¶23

the Court of the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I cum

¶24

Special Judge, Dumka are quashed.

¶25

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.

¶26

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶27

Ajay/

Kamlesh Kanodia v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Kanodia v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Binod Mahli Vs the State of Jharkhand

Baga Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shayla Shakra Alias Tamanna Vs the State of Jharkhand

N.Venkateshwar Rao Alias N.V. Venketeshwar Rao Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Birendra Kumar Bhatia Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sudip Kumar Mukhopadhyay Alias S K Mukhopadhyay Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.