Saugat Mitra Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No. 365 of 2024

¶2

Saugat Mitra, aged about 46 years, son of Shyamal Kumar Mitra, resident of Flat No. 201, Block A, Kumar Complex, 14 Choudhary Para Street, Uttar Para, Serampur, P.O. & P.S.Serampur, Dist.-Hooghly (West Bengal)

¶3

Shankar Kumar Jha @ S.K. Jha, aged about 49 years, son of Sri Chakradhar Jha, resident of Road No.06, Baroda Ghat, Railway Co-operative Society, P.O.-Bagbera, P.S.-Bagbera, Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum (Jharkhand)

¶4

Basant Kumar Pradhan @ Basant Pradhan, aged about 55 years, son of Babulal Pradhan, resident of 360, Loknath Nagar, Ward No.16, Chakardharpur, P.O. & P.S.-Chakardharpur, Dist.-West Singhbhum (Jharkhand)

¶5

.... Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Bikash Kumar Gupta, son of late G.P. Gupta, proprietor of M/s Vikash Gupta & Company, resident of Bazar Post Office Road, New Ward No.6, P.O. & P.S.-Chakardhapur, Dist.-West Singhbhum (Jharkhand)

¶9

…. Respondents

¶10

P R E S E N T

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶12

….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Jalisur Rahman, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Kerketta, SC VI : Mrs. Ruby Yadav, AC to SC VI For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sakaldeo Singh, Advocate

¶13

By the Court:-

¶14

Heard the parties.

¶15

W.P. (Cr.) No.365 of 2024

¶16

1

¶17

This Writ Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 157 of 2022 including the order taking cognizance dated 13.10.2023 in the said case passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Porahat at Chaibasa.

¶18

A preliminary objection is raised by the learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that this writ petition is not maintainable having been filed with a prayer to quash the judicial order passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Porahat in Complaint Case No. 157 of 2022 dated 13.10.2022 as a writ of certiorari cannot be issued for quashing an judicial order.

¶19

Having heard the rival 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 as has been held by the Hon’ble Full Bench Judgment of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Ravi @ Ram Prasad & Etc. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1987 SCC OnLine Pat 83 wherein, the Hon’ble Patna High Court has categorically held that writ of certiorari cannot be issued for quashing an order passed by a criminal court.

¶20

This settled principle of law has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India albeit in response to an order passed by a civil court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. vs. Vivek V. Gawde & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3722 and relying upon its judgment in the case of

¶21

W.P. (Cr.) No.365 of 2024

¶22

2

¶23

Radhey Shyam & Anr. v. Chhabi Nath & Ors. reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423 rendered by a three Judge Bench, paragraph no.25 of which is quoted in paragraph no.14 of the judgment of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. vs. Vivek V. Gawde &

¶24

Ors. (supra) which reads as under:-

¶25

“14. In view of such binding decision, the inescapable conclusion presenting itself is that the appellate order under challenge before the High Court was rendered by a civil court, and it is trite that orders passed by a civil court cannot be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. This point in law has been decisively reiterated in the 3-Judge Bench decision in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath⁴ . This Court, while holding that an order of the civil court could only be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution, and not Article 226 thereof, ruled that:

¶26

“25.***All the courts in the jurisdiction of a High Court are subordinate to it and subject to its control and supervision under Article 227. Writ jurisdiction is constitutionally conferred on all the High Courts. Broad principles of writ jurisdiction followed in England are applicable to India and a writ of certiorari lies against patently erroneous or without jurisdiction orders of tribunals or authorities or courts other than judicial courts. There are no precedents in India for the High Courts to issue writs to the subordinate courts. Control of working of the subordinate courts in dealing with their judicial orders is exercised by way of appellate or revisional powers or power of superintendence under Article 227. Orders of the civil court stand on different footing from the orders of authorities or tribunals or courts other than judicial/civil courts. While appellate or revisional jurisdiction is regulated by the statutes, power of superintendence under Article 227 is constitutional. The expression “inferior court” is

¶27

W.P. (Cr.) No.365 of 2024

¶28

3

¶29

not referable to the judicial courts, as rightly observed in the referring order [Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2009) 5 SCC 616] in paras 26 and 27 quoted above.

¶30

__*

¶31

27. Thus, we are of the view that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226. We are also in agreement with the view [Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2009) 5 SCC 616] of the referring Bench that a writ of mandamus does not lie against a private person not discharging any public duty. Scope of Article 227 is different from Article 226.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶32

Under such circumstances, it being a settled principle of law that writ of certiorari cannot be issued for quashing the order passed by a criminal court, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, having being filed with the ultimate prayer of quashing the order of taking cognizance by learned S.D.J.M., Porahat at Chaibasa dated 13.10.2023 in Complaint Case No. 157 of 2022 is not maintainable.

¶33