Allowed

Nivedita Ranjan And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC2 Jul 2024Cr.M.P./791/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand quashed criminal proceedings under Section 420 IPC against petitioners accused of cheating in interior decoration work. Relying on reported precedents, the Court held that since a consumer complaint was filed and work was done, proceeding criminally would be an abuse of process, allowing the consumer forum to adjudicate deficiency. The order is final regarding the crimi

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings and the order of cognizance dated 03.12.2016 arising out of C.P. Case No.1652 of 2016 are quashed.

Nivedita Ranjan And Anr. Vs The State Of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 791 of 2017

¶3

----

¶4

1.Nivedita Rajan

¶5

2.Jitu Das .... Petitioners

¶6

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

¶7

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶9

For the Petitioners :- Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Jitendra Pandey, Advocate For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate ----

¶10

5 /02.07.2024

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned

¶12

counsel appearing for the respondent State and the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2.

¶13

Prayer in this petition has been made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 03.12.2016, arising out of C.P.Case No.1652 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi.

¶14

The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the petitioner and the complainant entered into an agreement for interior decoration of flat of the complainant situated at 4, Anga Apartment, West End Park, Ranchi out of a quotation for an amount of Rs.14,70,000/- in the way as described in the agreement. It was agreed that the work of the said flat would be completed by 05.03.2016. It has been alleged that the accused has taken Rs.4.5 lacs in advance on 10.12.2015 but no significant work was done by them. Again on 08.01.2016 Rs.4.5 lacs were paid to them as 2^nd instalment but some minor work was performed and they promised to complete the work before Grih Pravesh (05.03.2016). On 26.02.2016 again Rs.4 lacs was paid to them but they did not do the work as they promised and many

¶15

1 Cr.M.P. No.791 of 2017

¶16

work remained incomplete. By this way the accused have cheated and misappropriated an amount of Rs.13 lacs from the complainant.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an agreement was entered between the petitioners and the son of the O.P.No.2 for interior decoration of the flat which was purchased by the son of the O.P.No.2. He submits that pursuant to that agreement, certain amount was received by the petitioners and they have executed the work of interior decoration of the said flat. He submits that almost the entire work was done, however, complainant was not satisfied with the said work and for that the present complaint case has been filed. He submits that it is not a case that no work was executed pursuant to that agreement. He further submits that O.P.No.2 has also preferred a case before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ranchi being Complaint Case No.35 of 2018. He submits that what happened in that case he is not knowing at present. On this ground, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that on the complaint petition the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance.

¶19

The learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 submits that intention of cheating from the very beginning is there and as such the learned court has rightly taken cognizance and this Court may not quash the entire criminal proceeding at this stage.

¶20

In solemn affirmation, it has been also admitted that certain work was done, however, it was not to the satisfaction of the O.P.no.2. In the agreement, the mode of payment was also disclosed. The photographs contained in Annexure-4 further suggest that the work was

¶21

2 Cr.M.P. No.791 of 2017

¶22

done, however, it was not up to the satisfaction of the O.P.no.2 and for that criminal complaint case has been lodged. Further, O.P.No.2 has already instituted a case under the Consumer Protection Act by way of filing complaint petition being Complaint Case No.35 of 2018 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ranchi. It was not pointed out either by the petitioners or the O.P.No.2 as to what happened in that consumer case filed by the O.P.no.2. In this background, the O.P.No.2 has rightly chosen the forum of District foras as if any case is made out that is deficiency in service. It is well-settled that any deficiency detected post purchase opens up an avenue for the aggrieved consumer to seek relief before the Consumer foras. A reference may be made to the case

¶23

of Debashish Sinha v. R.N.R. Enterprises reported in (2023) 3 SCC 195.

¶24

In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, to allow the criminal proceeding to continue further will amount to abuse of process of law.

¶25

As such, entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 03.12.2016, arising out of C.P.Case No.1652 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi is quashed.

¶26

This petition is allowed and disposed of.

¶27

It is made clear that if the consumer case is not finalized as yet, that will be decided in accordance with law without prejudice to this order as this order is passed only considering the parameters of criminal aspect of the matter.

¶28

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶29

SI/,

¶30

3 Cr.M.P. No.791 of 2017

Nivedita Ranjan And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nivedita Ranjan And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nazim Ansari Alias Najim Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Naveen Kumar Verma Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Santosh Kumar Alias Santosh Kumar Shreshth Vs the State of Jharkhand

Om Prakash Upadhyay And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Anand Shankar And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Debendra Ram Alias Debnandar Ram Vs State Of Jharkhand