Mahadeo Mahto And Ors. Vs Santi Devi And Anr.

Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Achinto Sen, learned counsel for the State and Mr. B.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

¶18

This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 08.03.2017 passed in connection with Protest-cum-Complaint Case No. 920 of 2016, T.R. No. 339 of 2017, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Hazaribagh.

¶19

The prosecution case arises out of written report of informant alleging therein that 20.04.2014 around 1.00 P.M. the petitioner came to her house and started beating her and also tried to remove her saree and in that process she lost her silver chain from her neck and accordingly she prayed to investigate the matter, the same was registered at Tatijharia P.S. Case No. 15/2014 dated 21.04.2014 under section 341/323/379/354 of the I.P.C.

¶20

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was investigated by the police in which final form was submitted saying the case false and on the protest petition, the learned court has taken cognizance under section 354 of I.P.C. by order dated 08.03.2017. He submits

¶21

that in the final form itself it has been disclosed that there is dispute with

¶22

¶23

regard to Khata No. 10, plot no. 164, rakwa 47 decimals and khata no. 10, plot no. 167, Khata No. 10 Plot No. 167, rakwa 56 decimals was related to Title (Partition) Suit No. 09/1956 and the said suit was filed by Jnani Ram, grandfather of Prashant Sinha and others in which preliminary decree was passed and the grandfather got ¾ share and 1/4^th share by compromise. He submits that the said order was challenged in First Appeal No. 62 of 1987 and they have not pressed the said suit. Pursuant to that the decree was prepared. He submits that for preparation of final decree, the petition was filed which was dismissed and thereafter the petitioner moved in Civil Revision No. 618 of 1989 which was allowed in favour of the petitioner and against the said order opposite party moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to dismiss the said SLP 15969/91 by order dated 24.11.1994. He submits that thereafter the said land was transferred to the complainant and on the false pretext the protest petition was filed and the learned court has taken cognizance. He submits that in view of that maliciously the present case has been filed against the petitioner and the entire criminal proceeding may be quashed.

¶24

Mr. B.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 submits that there is allegation and the Hon’ble High Court sitting under section 482 Cr.P.C. is required to restrain itself and any order is required to be passed with circumspection. He submits that the allegations are there and in view of that the learned court has rightly taken cognizance. He further submits that only in rarest of rare cases the High Courts are exercising its power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. He further submits that this petition may be dismissed.

¶25

Mr. Achinto Sen, learned counsel for the State submits that the police investigated the matter and submitted final form however on the protest petition the learned court has taken cognizance.

¶26

It is an admitted position that the F.I.R. being Tatijharia P.S. Case

¶27

¶28

No. 15/2014 was registered which was investigated by the police in which final form was submitted disclosing therein that there is dispute between the parties with regard to land and falsely case has been filed thereafter protest petition was filed pursuant to that the learned court has taken cognizance.

¶29

It is further an admitted position that Title (Partition) Suit was

¶30

there. The First Appeal was preferred by the vendors of the O.P. No.2. The First Appeal they have not pressed subsequently when the decree was not prepared the petitioner filed the Civil Revision No.618 of 1989 which was allowed in favour of the petitioner and the said order was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the vendors of the O.P. No.2 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to dismiss the SLP. Thereafter the vendors of the O.P. No.2 sold the said land to the O.P. No.2 and thereafter protest petition has been filed alleging therein that misbehavior has been made by the petitioner. Thus, the dispute with regard to the land in question are there.

¶31

In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines because if the complainant decides to proceed against the accused an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In view of that the High Court did not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of

¶32

¶33

the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Reference may be made to the case of Haji Iqbal @ Bala Vs. State of U.P.

¶34

and others reported in 2023 SCC Online 946 .

¶35

Coming to the facts of the present case whatsoever has been discussed hereinabove, the Court finds that maliciously the case has been filed as the matter is arising out of civil litigation. Further To put the criminal law on motion by examining two enquiry witnesses is a serious thing as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Pepsi Foods Limited and Anr. vrs. Special Judicial Magistrate” reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749.

¶36

In view of above the Court finds that to allow the criminal proceeding will amount the abuse of process of law and accordingly, entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 08.03.2017 passed in connection with Protest-cum-Complaint Case No. 920 of 2016, T.R. No. 339 of 2017, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Hazaribagh are quashed.

¶37

This petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands

¶38

disposed of. Interim order is vacated.

¶39

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶40

Satyarthi/

Mahadeo Mahto And Ors. v. Santi Devi And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadeo Mahto And Ors. v. Santi Devi And Anr.

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

Shyam Bihari Agarwal And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Shah Fahad Alias Kashif Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Dhananjay Gupta And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Ram Pado Das And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Kavita Devi And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Raj Kumar Singhania Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.