Rabindra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 551 of 2023

Rabindra Kumar, aged about 48 years, Son of Late Ramashish Singh, Resident of Village –Sonchari, P.O. –Parwalpur, P.S. –Parwalpur, District –Nalanda (Bihar).

¶3

.... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Arvind Kumar Singh, Son of Late Brijnandan Singh, Resident of Indra Prastha Colony, Jora Talab Road, P.O. –Bariatu, P.S. –Bariatu, District -Ranchi.

¶7

Opp. Parties

¶8

P R E S E N T

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Anoop Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Sumir Prasad, Advocate : Mr. Avishek Chandra, Advocate : Mr. Vishnu Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Satish Prasad, Advocate : Mr. S.N. Ahmed, Advocate

¶11

By the Court:-

¶12

Heard the parties.

¶13

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.09.2021, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate XXI, Ranchi in Bariatu P.S. Case No. 300 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 4970 of 2013 by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section

¶14

3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act inter-alia against the petitioner,

¶15

1

¶16

Cr.M.P. No.551 of 2023

¶17

consequent upon the complaint being referred to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., police registered Bariatu P.S. Case No. 300 of 2013 and took up investigation of the case and after investigation, police found the allegation inter-alia against the petitioner to be true and submitted charge sheet against the petitioner also.

¶18

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons induced the complainant-informant to part with Rs.2,92,000/- in several installments by misrepresenting the complainantinformant that the co-accused Sintu Kumar will marry the daughter of the complainant-informant but ultimately after deceiving the complainant-informant and ensuring that he parts with Rs.2,92,000/- by way of cheating, the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons demanded further dowry of one Hero Honda Motorcycle and five gold jewelries; though initially they represented that the coaccused –Sintu Kumar will marry the daughter of the complainant-informant on taking Rs.3,00,000/- only. After thus cheating the complainant-informant, the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons committed dishonest misappropriation of the entrusted amount of Rs.2,92,000/-. The complainant-informant filed Complaint Case No. 1707 of 2013 in the court of Judicial Magistrate -1^st Class, Ranchi, which was referred to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

¶19

2

¶20

Cr.M.P. No.551 of 2023

¶21

Police registered the Bariatu P.S. Case No. 300 of 2013 and took up investigation of the case. After completion of investigation of the case, police submitted charge sheet, finding the allegation made inter-alia against the petitioner to be true and the petitioner along with the co-accused persons having committed the offence punishable under Section 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶22

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 28.09.2021, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate XXI, Ranchi in Bariatu P.S. Case No. 300 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 4970 of 2013 has been passed without application of mind. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was mediator for the said marriage which was never solemnized. It is next submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

¶23

The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of being in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons committed cheating of Rs.2,92,000/- by inducing the complainant-informant to part with the said property by falsely representing that the co-accused –Sintu Kumar will marry the daughter of the complainant-informant and has committed

¶24

3

¶25

Cr.M.P. No.551 of 2023

¶26

dishonest misappropriation of the said property of Rs.2,92,000/,in furtherance of their common intention. Besides, in furtherance of their common intention they have also demanded dowry and the allegations were found to be true inter-alia against the petitioner during the investigation of the case. It is next submitted that for taking cognizance based on police report, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing the process. Hence, there is absolutely no illegality in the order sought to be quashed by the petitioner in this case. It is lastly submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

¶27

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that at the stage of issuing summons to the accused based on a police report, Magistrate is not required to record any reason as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in (2019) 20 SCC 539 .

¶28

Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons cheated and thereby dishonestly induced the complainant-informant to part with Rs.2,92,000/- by making the false representation that the coaccused will marry the daughter of the complainant-informant

¶29

4

¶30

Cr.M.P. No.551 of 2023

¶31

upon taking a total amount of Rs.3,00,000/- thus making the complainant-informant to part with Rs.2,92,000/-by way of cheating. The petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons demanded dowry of a motorcycle and five gold jewelries and the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons committed dishonest misappropriation of the entrusted property i.e. Rs.2,92,000/-. Police during the investigation of the case found the allegations to be true and after finding the allegations inter-alia against the petitioner to be true, submitted charge sheet against the petitioner along with the co-accused persons for having committed the said offences in respect of which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance.

¶32

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to quash the cognizance order as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition.

¶33