Rakesh Kumar Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶2

----

¶3

W.P. (Cr) No. 372 of 2024

¶4

----

¶5

Rakesh Kumar Ram, aged about 50 years, son of Late Nageshwar Kumar Ram, resident of Panchsheel Nagar, Road No.2 near Bank of India, Pandra, P.O.Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi

¶6

.... Petitioner

¶7

-- Versus --

¶8

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶9

2.Shyam Nandan Singh, son of not known to the petitioner, Sub Inspector of Police, Ramgarh Police Station, P.O. and P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh

¶10

.... Respondent

¶11

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶13

--For the Petitioner :- Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate Ms. Sonal Sodhani, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Deepankar Roy, Advocate For the Respondent No.2 :- Mr. Utpal Kant, Advocate ----

¶14

7 /12.11.2024 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2/ informant.

¶15

The prayer in this writ petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 13.10.2023 arising out of Ramgarh P.S.Case No.168 of 2023, corresponding to G.R.Case No.670 of 2023, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh.

¶16

The F.I.R was registered alleging therein that one written complaint was filed as against this petitioner on 11.7.2023 by one Shyam Nandan Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police, Ramgarh. In his complaint he has stated that one Nidhi Dwivedi, resident of Chhatarmandu, Ramgarh

¶17

-1- W.P. (Cr) No. 372 of 2024

¶18

has given a written request on which a Sahna was registered, in which it has been alleged that one unknown person from Mobile No.6005242778 called Nidhi Dwivedi at night and aggressively spoke to her and used objectionable and abusive language. On verification it was detected that mobile number belongs to this petitioner. It has been verified that Nidhi Dwivedi is posted in CID Jharkhand, Ranchi and this petitioner on 7.7.2023 called her and used indecent language and he also abused the reader of Nidhi Dwivedi. Accordingly on the basis of report a case has been lodged under sections 354(C), 504 and 509 of the IPC.

¶19

Mr. Nilesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as Havildar in C.R.P.F and posted at Delhi C.R.P.F Headquarters. He further submits that on 7.7.2023 when the petitioner was at Delhi and his son residing at Ranchi was tortured and manhandled by local police of Ranchi that too without any reason and without instituting any case /complaint only on the ground that his vehicle has dashed one Innova Car which belongs to Nidhi Dwivedi, S.P., C.I.D, Ranchi and due to harsh action of the police the son of the petitioner got ill and the petitioner being a father from Delhi raised query and has asked question about the occurrence in question from the local police officer namely Rakesh Kumar Pandey who was working in the office of CID Ranchi and also wanted to know about the occurrence in question from the concerned Superintendent of Police, CID, Ranchi and that too over phone from Delhi. He submits that in that background, maliciously the present case has been lodged against the petitioner who happened to be a Havildar posted at Delhi. He then submits that learned court has taken cognizance under section 354(C), 504 and 509 of the IPC and none of the ingredients of those sections are

¶20

-2- W.P. (Cr) No. 372 of 2024

¶21

made out and inspite of that the charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and cognizance has been taken. He submits that only the petitioner has inquired from the higher police officer over telephone and that is why falsely the present case has been lodged against the petitioner. He further elaborates his argument by way of submitting that section 354(C) relates to voyeurism and the ingredients of the same has not been made out. He further submits that for attracting section 504 of the IPC the allegation that intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace is necessary which is lacking in the case in hand. He further submits that section 509 of the IPC is also not attracted as the allegation is only against the petitioner is that he has talked over telephone from Delhi. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. By way of drawing attention of the Court to the charge sheet contained in Annexure -2, he submits that the charge sheet has already been filed in a mechanical way and the relevant compliance of section 173 is not there. He submits that recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dablu Kujur v. State of Jharkhand reported in (2024) 6 SCC 758 has deprecated the State of Jharkhand and other States of filing the charge sheet in such perfunctory way.

¶22

Mr. Deepankar Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that all these grounds can be the subject matter of trial. He submits that this petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as such, at this stage, this Court may not roam into to come to a conclusion as to whether the case of quashing is made out or not. He further submits that the charge sheet has already been submitted and all the grounds taken by the petitioner can be the

¶23

-3- W.P. (Cr) No. 372 of 2024

¶24

subject matter of trial.

¶25

The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has adopted the argument of Mr. Deepankar Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State. He further submits that the petitioner has called upon the senior police officer and Sanha was lodged which was inquired into and thereafter the case has been registered and finally the charge sheet has been submitted. He submits that in view of that, no case of quashing is made out.

¶26

In view of above submission of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the contents of the F.I.R, charge-sheet as well as the order taking cognizance dated 13.10.2023. Admittedly, the petitioner happened to be a Havildar posted in CRPF Headquarters at Delhi and the allegation in the F.I.R is made of calling upon the senior police officer and the only allegation is there of using filthy language. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent State as well as the respondent no.2, wherein the averments made by the petitioner with regard to dashing of the vehicle of a senior police officer by the son of the petitioner is not denied and the said occurrence is said to be at Ranchi however the case is registered at Ramgarh which clearly suggest that since the petitioner who happened to be a Havildar in CRPF Headquarters at Delhi has called upon the senior police officer, maliciously the present case has been lodged against the petitioner that too under sections 354(C), 504 and 509 of the IPC.

¶27

For attracting section 354(C) of the IPC there must be allegation which includes an act of watching carried out in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy.

¶28

-4- W.P. (Cr) No. 372 of 2024

¶29

Admittedly, only the calling upon was made from Delhi by the petitioner and as such, the ingredients of section 354(C) of the IPC are not made out.

¶30

For attracting the ingredients of section 504 IPC the essential requirements are that the accused must intentionally insults, and such insult must give provocation to any person and further that must have requisite knowledge that such provocation will result in breach of public peace for commission of any other offence. These requirements are absent in the F.I.R, however, the charge sheet has been submitted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2013) 14 SCC 44 at paragraph no.13 of the said judgment, has held as under:

¶31

13. Section 504 IPC comprises of the following ingredients viz. (a) intentional insult, (b) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and (c) the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The person who intentionally insults intending or knowing it to be likely that it will give provocation to any other person and such provocation will cause to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, in such a situation, the ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied. One of the essential elements constituting the offence is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact that the accused abused the complainant, as such, is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction under Section 504 IPC.

¶32

Based on the above facts and by applying the decision

¶33

-5- W.P. (Cr) No. 372 of 2024

¶34

referred to hereinabove, this Court has got no hesitation to hold that the ingredients of section 504 IPC is not made out.

¶35

Section 509 of the IPC will be attracted if the word ‘gesture’ or ‘act’ is intended to insult the modesty of a woman. From the contents of the F.I.R, it is not clear that how and by way of using which word, the informant was insulted, and as such section 509 of the IPC is also not made out.

¶36

The Court has also looked into the charge sheet as contained in Annxure-2 and finds that the evidence of Rakesh Kumar Pandey said to be recorded separately and not in the case-diary and in the charge sheet it has been revealed that another dispute is there between the petitioner and the senior police officer. Thus, in either way, it is accepted that certain dispute is there and the fact of dashing the car by the son of the petitioner of a senior police officer is not denied in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent State as well as the respondent no.2, which clearly, suggest that since the petitioner happened to be Havildar and son of the petitioner has dashed the car of the senior police officer, the present case has been lodged.

¶37

The Court is in agreement with the argument of Mr. Deepankar Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State that the Court is not required to roam into to come to the conclusion that the case of quashing is made out or not. The High Courts are very slow in quashing of the proceeding and that is well settled, however, at the same time, the Courts are having the responsibility to examine the things so that any innocent person may not be prosecuted and for that the Court is required to read the things in between the lines. In the judgment, in the case of Dablu Kujur v. -6- W.P. (Cr) No. 372 of 2024

¶38

State of Jharkhand reported in (2024) 6 SCC 758 the guidelines

¶39

made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not followed. The charge sheet is also absent as to what are the evidence which clearly suggest that the charge sheet was submitted with pre-occupied mind. The Court has looked into the order taking cognizance dated 13.10.2023 and finds that the word ‘cognizance’ is filled up in the blank space, however, the order is typed one, which further clearly suggest that there is non-application of judicial mind in taking the cognizance.

¶40

In view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme

¶41

Court in this case of Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 706, it is well settled that the Court can interfere in the matter even after filing of the charge sheet or at any stage. 15. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, to allow the proceeding to continue will amount to abuse of the process of law, and as such, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 13.10.2023 arising out of Ramgarh P.S.Case No.168 of 2023, corresponding to G.R.Case No.670 of 2023, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh is, hereby, quashed.

¶42

This petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶43

Pending petition if any also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶44

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶45

SI/,

¶46

A.F.R.

¶47

-7- W.P. (Cr) No. 372 of 2024

Rakesh Kumar Ram v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar Ram v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baban Dubey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prithi Ram Tudu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shailesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pradeep Vishwkarma Alias Pradeep Mistri Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mohit Hembram Alias Mohit Hembrom Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chitranjan Prasad Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand