Dismissed¶29

Dilip Kumar Burnwal v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC21 Oct 2024Cr.M.P./281/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing petition; Section 482 CrPC; Complaint Case No.1023 of 2014; cognizance order 22.07.2015; JMFC Dhanbad; Section 406 IPC criminal breach of trust/misappropriation; Sections 504 & 506 IPC insult and criminal intimidation; examination fees entrustment; school Principal; admit card non-issuance; Right to Information Act; Monica Kumar (Dr.) v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 8 SCC 781; genuine prosecution cannot be stifled; reasoned order objection; interim relief vacated; Anil Kumar Choudhary; 21 October 2024.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; the interim relief granted vide order dated 26.11.2019 stands vacated, and the Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith. ¶29

Dilip Kumar Burnwal Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; the interim relief granted vide order dated 26.11.2019 stands vacated, and the Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether entrustment of the examination fees to the petitioner and his failure to remit them to the examining council constitutes dishonest misappropriation amounting to an offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (petitioner contending the examination form has no pecuniary value and hence no entrustment/misappropriation arises). +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

The petitioner was entrusted with the examination fees by the complainant and committed dishonest misappropriation of the same by not remitting the fees to the examining council, resulting in non-issuance of the complainant's admit card; the offence under Section 406 IPC thus stands made out on the record.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

It is a settled principle of law, as held in Monica Kumar (Dr.) v. State of Uttar Pradesh, that a genuine prosecution cannot be stifled by exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC.

¶26

Key takeaways

This is not a fit case in which the prosecution of the petitioner should be quashed and set aside.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Cr.M.P. No.281 of 2019 (High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi) — Petition under S.482 CrPC seeking quashal of Complaint Case No.1023 of 2014 and the cognizance order dated 22.07.2015 of the JMFC, Dhanbad, by which cognizance was taken of offences under Ss.406, 504 & 506 IPC against Dilip Kumar Burnwal, Principal of a school. Allegations: the petitioner collected examination fees from the complainant and misappropriated them without remitting them to the conducting authority, leading to non-issuance of the complainant's admit card and loss of an academic year; information sought under the Right to Information Act was not supplied; the petitioner allegedly insulted the complainant's mother and criminally intimidated the complainant. Held: entrustment of the examination fees and their dishonest misappropriation by the petitioner stand established on the record; genuine prosecution cannot be stifled by exercise of power under S.482 CrPC, reliance being placed on Monica Kumar (Dr.) v. State of U.P., (2008) 8 SCC 781; not a fit case for quashal. Cr.M.P. dismissed; interim relief granted vide order dated 26.11.2019 vacated.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.281 of 2019

¶2

------

¶3

Dilip Kumar Burnwal, aged about 64 years S/o Guru Prasad Burnwal

¶4

R/o B-136, Sail Satellite Township, Dhurwa, Near Delhi Public School, P.O. & P.S. Jagarnathpur, Dist-Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand, and

¶8

Md. Javed, S/o Md. Eqbal R/o Topchanchi, P.O. & P.S. Topchanchi, Dist-Dhanbad.

¶9

… Opposite Parties

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumar Nilesh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. R.C. Sahu, Advocate ------

¶11

P R E S E N T

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶13

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶14

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 Complaint Case No.1023 of 2014 including the order taking cognizance dated 22.07.2015 passed by learned J.M.F.C, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned JMFC, Dhanbad took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 406, 504 & 506 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

¶15

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the Principal of the School collected examination fees from the complainant and misappropriated the same by not sending the same to the examination

¶16

1 Cr. M.P. No.281 of 2019

¶17

conducting authority and when the petitioner sought information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act then the information was not supplied to him. When the complainant met the Principal along with his mother, the petitioner intentionally insulted the mother of the complainant and when the complainant went with his father to the petitioner, the petitioner criminally intimidated him.

¶18

On the basis of the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and statement of inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 406, 504 & 506 of Indian Penal Code and ordered for issuance of summons.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that examination form has no pecuniary value, hence, the same will not amount to entrustment of any property nor the same can be termed as misappropriation.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad has not passed a reasoned order, hence, the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed. 7. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that the allegation against the petitioner is not of dishonest misappropriation of the examination form rather the allegation is of dishonestly misappropriation of the entrusted examination

¶21

fees and the misappropriation of the examination fees which is money, by the petitioner amounts to the offence punishable under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that there is direct and specific allegation

¶22

2 Cr. M.P. No.281 of 2019

¶23

against the petitioner of being entrusted with the examination fees which the petitioner instead of sending to the examining council has misappropriated, which resulted in the complainant, failing to appear in the examination and losing an academic year. It is next submitted that nowhere in the criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioner has denied entrustment of the examination fees to the petitioner and that he failed to remit the same to the examining authority of the petitioner and thus the same amounts to admission of the entrustment of the examination fees and dishonest misappropriation of the same, constituting the offence punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code. It is then submitted that not even a word has been whispered by the petitioner in this petition regarding the offence punishable under Section 504 & 506 of Indian Penal Code having been committed by the petitioner and the petitioner has not even dared to deny the same. It is then submitted that indisputably the said offences are made out in view of the commission of the ingredients of the said offence by the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that as all the three offences in respect of which the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

¶24

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 the undisputed facts remains that the petitioner was entrusted with the examination fees by the complainant, but the petitioner has committed dishonest misappropriation of the same by not sending the examination fees to the examining council resulting in non-issuance of the admit card of the complainant for the examination concerned. This criminal miscellaneous

¶25

3 Cr. M.P. No.281 of 2019

¶26

petition is silent in respect of the offences punishable under Section 504 & 506 of Indian Penal Code and as already indicated above, there is allegation of the ingredients of the said offence having been committed by the petitioner. It is a settled principle of law that genuine prosecution cannot be stifled with by exercise of power under Section 482 of CrPC as has been held in the case of

¶27

Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781.

¶28

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view, this is not a fit case where the prosecution of the petitioner, as prayed for, be quashed and set aside.

¶29