Allowed

Ram Ayodhaya v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Apr 2024Cr.M.P./286/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged cognizance taken on a protest petition after the Magistrate had already accepted the police final form exonerating them, with a recommendation to proceed against the complainant under Sections 182 and 211 IPC. The High Court held the Magistrate had no power to modify or review his earlier order accepting the final form, and quashed the entire criminal proceeding.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 3.10.2019 taking cognizance on the protest petition and the entire criminal proceeding in C.P. Case No. 163 of 2019 quashed.

Ram Ayodhaya Vs the State of Jharkhand — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶2

----

¶3

Cr.M.P. No. 286 of 2020

----

1.Ram Ayodhaya

2.Ramesh Kumar

3.Santosh Kumar

4.Jitu Rawani @ Jitu Kumar Rawani

¶9

5.Somnath Prasad

¶10

6.Bhuna Kumar Ram @ Guddu Kumar Ram 7.Nand Brij Kishore Singh @ Nand Kishore Singh 8.Birendra Rana @ Birendra Mistry 9.Sukhdeo Rana .... Petitioners

¶11

-- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties

¶12

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶14

¶15

For the Petitioners :- Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P. For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. Asif Khan, Advocate ----

¶16

9 /09.04.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned

¶17

counsel for the respondent State as well as the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2.

¶18

The prayer in this petition has been made for quashing of the order dated 3.10.2019 passed in C.P.Case No.163 of 2019, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad.

¶19

Protest cum complaint petition has been filed alleging therein that O.P.no.2 filed protest complain against all the petitioners alleging therein that he is the informant of Baliapur P.S. Case No.76 of 2017 and protesting the final report of police. It has been alleged that

¶20

¶21

he got power of attorney with regard to 16 decimal land ou of total 32 decimal appertaining to Mauza Aamtahal, Mauza No.43, Khata No.15, plotno.2056 of an area of 23 decimals, plot no.2055 of an area of 7 decimals and plot no.2054 of an area of 2 decimals from Bablu Kumar Jha vide registered poser of attorney no.2775 dated 30.4.2016. The said Bablu Kumar Jha has got ownership right and possession over said land through registered sale deed no.1544 dated 26.2.2015 which was mutated in his name vide mutation case no.62(III)/2015-16 and was registered in Register II in the name of Bablu Kumar.

¶22

On 22.5.2017 Ram Ayodhya, Ramesh Kumar, Santosh Kumar and 10-15 unknown persons were breaking boundary wall of complainant’s land. On getting information the complainant reached there and objected the above persons to do so. On this they caught him and asked to leave the said land otherwise he would be buried on the said land. They demanded Rs.5 lakh within two days and in meanwhile Santosh Kumar snatched gold chain from complainant’s neck and Ramesh Kumar took out Rs.3000/- from his pocket and threatened that he is an army officer at Bairrakpur.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant has lodged Baliapur P.S. Case No.76 of 2017 against the petitioners which was investigated by the police and after investigation, the police has submitted final form and case found false in nature and recommendation was made under section 182 and 211 IPC to proceed against the O.P.No.2. He submits that pursuant to that, the learned court has been pleased to accept the recommendation by order dated 16.03.2018 contained in Annexure-3/1 however, on the protest petition, the learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioners which

¶24

¶25

amounts to review of the order passed by the learned court. He submits that the O.P.No.2 is land mafia and for the dispute with regard to land the petitioners have filed the title suit being Original Suit No.52 of 2016 pending before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhanbad, which is still pending and to buttress his such argument, he refers to plaint brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed as the O.P.No.2 is land mafia and falsely the present case has been lodged.

¶26

The learned counsel for the State submits that the learned court has rightly been taken cognizance and the learned court is competent to take cognizance on the protest petition if the case is made out.

¶27

Learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 submits that on the protest petition the learned court has rightly taken cognizance and recommendation under section 182 and 211 IPC was unwarranted by the police against the O.P.No.2.

¶28

It is admitted position that the FIR was investigated by the police and final form was submitted and petitioners have been exonerated and recommendations were made to proceed against the O.P.No.2 under section 182 and 211 IPC. The learned court has been pleased to accept the said final form however on the protest petition the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioners. The supplementary affidavit is brought on record wherein the plaint of Original Suit No.52 of 2016 has been filed, it transpires that for the dispute with regard to land, one suit is pending. Such course was not permissible and it is not open to the leaned court to entertain a protest petition against its earlier order of accepting the final form. The

¶29

¶30

order dated 03.10.2019 amounts to modification of the order dated 16.03.2018 which was not permissible as there is no power conferred upon the learned court to modify its earlier order of accepting the final form.

¶31

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 3.10.2019 passed in C.P.Case No.163 of 2019, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad is quashed.

¶32

This petition is allowed and disposed of.

¶33

Pending petition if any also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶34

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶35

SI/,

¶36

Ram Ayodhaya v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Ayodhaya 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Niranjan Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vishal Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kailash Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shaibal Chatterjee Alias Dr Shaibal Chatterjee Alias Dr Sebal Chatarjee Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manish Kumar Gond Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Zillion Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Managing Director Sh Anant Saxena And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.