Dismissed¶33

MD Taaz v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Oct 2024Cr.M.P./26/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand HC quashing petition dismissed (Cr.M.P. 26/2024, decided 03.10.2024, Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) — Section 482 CrPC — falsity of allegations is a defence for trial, not a ground for quashing; no mini trial permissible under Section 482; genuine prosecution cannot be stifled. Airport P.S. Case No.06/2022 / G.R. Case No.1556/2022; cognizance order dated 08.06.2022 by CJM Ranchi; Sections 341/323/427/34 IPC. Precedents relied on: T.T. Antony v. CBI; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Akhil Sharda (2022 LiveLaw SC 594); Monica Kumar (Dr.) v. State of Uttar Pradesh ((2008) 8 SCC 781).

What did the court decide?

Settled principle adopted by this Court: no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC, per State of Uttar Pradesh v. Akhil Sharda (2022 LiveLaw SC 594). ¶25

MD Taaz Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceeding relating to Airport P.S. Case No.06/2022 (G.R. Case No.1556/2022), including the cognizance order dated 08.06.2022 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC on the sole ground that the allegations against the petitioners are false.

¶22

Court's answer

Settled principle noted by this Court: a case and a counter case for the same occurrence is maintainable, as held by the Supreme Court in T.T. Antony v. CBI.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

¶25

Key takeaways

Settled principle adopted by this Court: in exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC, the genuine prosecution cannot be stifled, per Monica Kumar (Dr.) v. State of Uttar Pradesh ((2008) 8 SCC 781).ratio¶27
There is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of committing the offences punishable under Sections 341/323/427/34 IPC and the same was found to be true during the investigation of the case.ratio¶28
The only ground sought for quashing — that the allegations against the petitioners are false — can only be determined in a full dress trial of the case and cannot be determined by this Court at this stage in exercise of its power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; hence the Cr.M.P. lacks merit.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Cr.M.P. No.26 of 2024), High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, decided 03.10.2024 by Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. Petitioners Md. Taaz and Md. Iliyash sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC of the entire criminal proceeding in Airport P.S. Case No.06/2022 (G.R. Case No.1556/2022), including the cognizance order dated 08.06.2022 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, for offences under Sections 341/323/427/34 IPC arising out of an alleged trespass into the informant's house, assault on and hurt to the informant's daughter, mischief in the informant's shop and wrongful restraint of her. Sole ground urged was that the allegations were false. Court held: (i) a case and a counter case for the same occurrence is maintainable (T.T. Antony v. CBI); (ii) no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of Section 482 CrPC power (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Akhil Sharda, 2022 LiveLaw SC 594); (iii) the genuine prosecution cannot be stifled under Section 482 (Monica Kumar (Dr.) v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 781); (iv) there being direct and specific allegations found true in investigation, falsity of allegations can be tested only in a full dress trial, not at the Section 482 stage. Cr.M.P. dismissed as without merit.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No.26 of 2024

¶3

------

¶4

Md. Taaz, aged about 38 years son of Md. Iliyash

¶5

Md. Iliyash aged about 67 years, son of Late Md. Arsad, Both resident of Pokhartoli, Road No.1, P.O. Doranda, P.S.Airport (Doranda) District-Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶6

… Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand

¶9

Kashmira Khatoon, wife of Md. Anwar, resident of Raza Colony, Road No.1, P.O.-Doranda, P.S.-Airport (Doranda), District-Ranchi.

¶10

… Opposite Parties

¶11

For the Petitioners : Mr. S.B. Gupta, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl.P.P.

¶12

------

¶13

P R E S E N T

¶14

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶15

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶16

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Airport P.S. Case No.06/2022, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1556/2022, including the order taking cognizance dated 08.06.2022 passed

¶17

by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 341/323/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code consequent upon submission of charge sheet against the petitioners after finding that the petitioners have committed the said offence.

¶18

1 Cr. M.P. No.26 of 2024

¶19

The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in furtherance of common intentions with the co-accused persons, trespassed to the house of the informant, assaulted the daughter of the informant, caused hurt to her and committed mischief in the shop of the informant and wrongfully restrained the daughter of the informant.

¶20

On the basis of the written report of the informant, police registered Airport P.S. Case No.06/2022 and took up investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, police found the allegations against the petitioners to be true and submitted charge sheet, consequent upon which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has taken cognizance.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegations against the petitioners are false. The petitioner no.1 submitted an application basing upon which Airport P.S. Case No.05/2022 has been registered but the petitioner could not obtain the certified copy of the same. The petitioners have no document to show registration of Airport P.S. Case No.05/2022, hence, it is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners being false; the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed.

¶22

Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that the sole ground upon which the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding is made is that the allegations against the petitioners are false. It is next submitted that the same is at best a defence, which the petitioners can take at the time of trial, but the same is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

¶23

¶24

Cr. M.P. No.26 of 2024

¶25

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that a case and a counter case for the same occurrence is maintainable as has been held by the honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of T.T.Antony versus CBI . It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594 that no mini trial can be conducted by the high court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the relevant portion of which reads as under :-

¶26

“Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered. (Emphasis supplied)

¶27

It is also a settled principle of law that in exercise of power under Section 482 of CrPC, the genuine prosecution cannot be stifled as has been held in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781 .

¶28

Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of committing the offences punishable under Sections 341/323/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the same was found to be true during the investigation of the case.

¶29

¶30

Cr. M.P. No.26 of 2024

¶31

The only ground upon which the petitioner is seeking quashing of the criminal prosecution is that, the allegations against him are false. The same can only be done in a full dress trial of the case but which is not permissible to be done by this court at this stage, in exercise of its power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶32