Kaleshwar Mahto And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

matter was taken on 18.04.2024 and on that day, nobody appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 and with a view to provide one more opportunity to opposite party no.2, the matter was adjourned and it was observed in paragraph 5 that if opposite party no.2 will not appear on the next date, this petition shall be decided in absence of opposite party no.2. Today on repeated calls, nobody has responded on behalf of opposite party no.2. In view of that, this petition is being heard on merit in absence of opposite party no.2.

¶16

Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State.

¶17

In this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Sonahatu (Rahe O.P.) P.S. Case

¶18

-1- Cr.M.P. No. 95 of 2017

¶19

No.101 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No.6359 of 2014 including the order taking cognizance dated 17.12.2015, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

¶20

The FIR was registered alleging therein that on 04.11.2014 at about 04.30 PM, all the accused persons armed with various weapons entered into the house of the opposite party no.2 and started abusing her and her husband and they also assaulted her daughters and on protest, the informant and her family members were also threatened. It was also alleged that on 05.05.1998, one of the accused Narsingh Lohra (petitioner no.2) assaulted Sharamnath Lohara and they also committed theft of paddy crops of Rs.25,000/-.

¶21

Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the written report, the alleged occurrence is said to be on 04.11.2014, however, the present FIR was registered on 13.11.2014. He further submits that on 06.11.2014, petitioner no.1 has lodged FIR being Sonahatu (Rahe O.P.) P.S. Case No.97 of 2014, contained in Annexure-3 against opposite party no.2 and others with regard to the plot in question, which was acquired by them in auction purchase by the Certificate Officer, Land Development Bank, Ranchi. He submits that thereafter the present case has been lodged on 13.11.2014, which was a counter blast case filed by the petitioners. He draws attention of the Court to the supplementary affidavit dated 01.05.2024 and submits that the documents with regard to the Certificate Case No.554 of 1994-95 is annexed, which suggests that the petitioners have purchased the plot in question in auction purchase. He further submits

¶22

-2- Cr.M.P. No. 95 of 2017

¶23

that in view of the above, the dispute is arising out of the plot and cutting of the paddy and the same dispute is civil in nature, however, criminal colour has been given. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.

¶24

On the other hand, Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer on the ground that the matter is still pending for appearance before the learned Court and the petitioners may take all the grounds at appropriate stage. She submits that the High Courts are very slow in quashing of the entire criminal proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. if the case is made out. On these grounds, she submits that this petition may kindly be dismissed.

¶25

The Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that admittedly the petitioner no.1 has earlier lodged Sonahatu (Rahe O.P.) P.S. Case No.97 of 2014 on 06.11.2014 and on 13.11.2014, the present FIR has been lodged against the petitioners. From perusal of the documents brought on record by way of filing supplementary affidavit, it is crystal clear that the plot was purchased by the petitioners in auction purchase and the subject matter of the FIRs filed by the petitioners as wells as opposite party no.2 are of cutting of the paddy from the plot in question. In view of that, if any case is made out i.e. civil in nature. It appears that filing of the present case is an after thought of opposite party no.2 as earlier petitioners have lodged Sonahatu (Rahe O.P.) P.S. Case No.97 of 2014 on 06.11.2014.

¶26

There is no doubt that the High Courts are very slow in quashing of the entire criminal proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C., if the case is made

¶27

-3- Cr.M.P. No. 95 of 2017

¶28

out, however, at the same time if the case is not made out, non-interference of the same will amount to abuse of process of law.

¶29

In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Sonahatu (Rahe O.P.) P.S. Case No.101 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No.6359 of 2014 including the order taking cognizance dated 17.12.2015, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi are, hereby, quashed.

¶30

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.

¶31

Interim order, if any, is vacated.

¶32

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶33

Ajay/

¶34

-4- Cr.M.P. No. 95 of 2017

Kaleshwar Mahto And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaleshwar Mahto And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagwat Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Thakur Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prakash Jyotishi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Singheshwar Yadav And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Dilip Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Prawin Kumar Toppo Alias Pravin Kumar Toppo Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.