Anil Kumar Mishra v. The State Of Jhakrhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC2 Jan 2025Cr.M.P./642/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Cr.M.P. No. 642 of 2016, Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J., pronounced 02.01.2025: quashing of cognizance/order dated 01.02.2016 under S.354(B) IPC in Complaint Case No. 2102 of 2015; no allegation or overt act against petitioner in solemn affirmation or enquiry-witness depositions; repeated/malicious prosecutions arising from same school incident; earlier quashals in Cr.M.P. No. 241 of 2017 (G.R. No. 538 of 2015) and Cr.M.P. No. 2119 of 2022 (Complaint Case No. 426 of 2017); S.482 Cr.P.C.; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal category 7; abuse of process; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 01.02.2016 passed in Complaint Case No. 2102 of 2015 as against the petitioner Anil Kumar Mishra. ¶108

Anil Kumar Mishra Vs The State Of Jhakrhand And Anr. — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 01.02.2016 passed in Complaint Case No. 2102 of 2015 as against the petitioner Anil Kumar Mishra.

¶108

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 01.02.2016 taking cognizance and the entire criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 2102 of 2015, so far as the petitioner is concerned, ought to be quashed. +2 more

¶13

Court's answer

The entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 01.02.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 2102 of 2015, as against the petitioner, stand quashed and the petition is allowed.

¶110

Ratio / Principle

The complainant and the enquiry witnesses neither named the petitioner during enquiry nor alleged any act, much less any overt act, against the petitioner in connection with the alleged incident of attempting to disrobe the complainant on 9.8.2015 at around 11.00 pm; the learned Court failed to take this into consideration and erroneously included the petitioner among the named accused while not taking cognizance against Sashi Kanta Dubey.

¶29

Key takeaways

On the face of the allegations made in the complaint with regard to the incident at Ranchi on 09.08.2015, there is no material to proceed against the petitioner, and continuation of the criminal case against him would amount to an abuse of the process of law.ratio¶107
The allegations in the present complaint relating to the incidents at Chaibasa on 08.08.2015 and 09.08.2015 were neither supported by the complainant in her solemn affirmation nor made the subject of cognizance; the parallel complaint case no. 111 of 2015 (G.R. No. 538 of 2015) containing the disrobing allegation was already quashed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 241 of 2017 vide order dated 05.04.2022 as a civil dispute and a malicious prosecution.ratio¶101

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing — inherent power under S.482 Cr.P.C. — cognizance order dated 01.02.2016 of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 2102 of 2015 (S.354(B) IPC) against petitioner Anil Kumar Mishra quashed. Complaint filed 24.08.2015 by Dharmshila Devi concerning incidents of 08–09.08.2015 at Chaibasa and the night of 09.08.2015 at Ranchi. In her solemn affirmation the complainant named several other accused but neither named the petitioner nor alleged any act against him; the enquiry witnesses (Sanju Devi, Baleshwar Tiwari) likewise made no allegation against him, yet cognizance was taken against all named accused while omitting Sashi Kanta Dubey. The Chaibasa-incident allegations were neither affirmed nor cognized, and the allied case G.R. No. 538 of 2015 (disrobing allegation, Complaint Case No. 111 of 2015) had already been quashed in Cr.M.P. No. 241 of 2017 on 05.04.2022 as a civil dispute and malicious prosecution with reference to Bhajan Lal category 7; Complaint Case No. 426 of 2017 was quashed in Cr.M.P. No. 2119 of 2022. With no material against the petitioner, continuation would be an abuse of process; petition allowed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 642 of 2016

¶3

Anil Kumar Mishra son of Shri Madan Mohan Mishra, resident of Niwaranpur, P.O.+ P.S.- Doranda, District- Ranchi

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Dharmshila Devi wife of Shri Surendra Kumar Rai, resident of Quarter No. DT 1366, Dam Side Dhurwa, H.E.C. Colony, P.ODhurwa, P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi … … Opp. Parties

¶8

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶10

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate : Ms. Akriti Shree, Advocate For the Opp. Party No. 2 : Mr. Shankar Lal Agarwal, Advocate : Ms. Ayushi, Advocate

¶11

--- Reserved on 11^th November, 2024 Pronounced on 02^nd January, 2025

¶12

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 01.02.2016 alongwith the entire criminal proceedings of the case so far the petitioner is concerned. The impugned order has been passed by the learned court of Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 2102 of 2015 whereby cognizance of the offence under Section 354(B) of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner and others.

¶14

Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner

¶15

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the entire criminal proceedings has submitted that the records of the case will reveal that the case arises out of malicious prosecution. He has submitted that there are repeated cases filed one after another relating to the same incident and the present case has been filed by Dharmshila Devi, wife of Surendra Kumar Rai. The earlier case being Complaint Case No. 111 of 2015 was filed by Surendra Kumar Rai, husband of Dharmshila Devi in which 23 persons were made opposite parties and apart from that, it was also mentioned in the Complaint that there were

¶16

¶17

100 to 150 unknown accused persons. The learned counsel submits that the Complaint Case No. 111 of 2015 was sent to the concerned police station for investigation by the police and was numbered as Sadar P.S. Case No.91/2015 dated 19.09.2015 (G.R. No. 538 of 2015) and has been ultimately quashed by this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. He has further submitted that upon investigation, Final Form was submitted by the police in the said case, but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa vide order dated 09.12.2016 had differed with the Final Form and had taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 452, 454, 354(B), 387, 406, 420, 467, 468, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The criminal case was ultimately quashed by this Hon’ble Court in Cr.M.P. No. 241 of 2017 on 05.04.2022.

¶18

4. Upon perusal of the said order passed in Cr.M.P. No. 241 of 2017, it is apparent that there were altogether 17 petitioners, but the present petitioner was not a party. At this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the order was passed in Cr.M.P. 241 of 2017 dated 05.04.2022, the criminal case has already been dropped.

¶19

5. The learned counsel further submits that the present ComplainantDharmshila Devi had filed another complaint case which was Complaint Case No. 426 of 2017 and the entire criminal proceeding of the said Complaint Case including summoning order dated 18.02.2022 has also been quashed by this Court vide order dated 05.09.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. No.2119 of 2022. However, the petitioner is not a party in Cr.M.P. No.2119 of 2022.

¶20

6. The learned counsel submits that in the meantime, Complaint Case No. 2102 of 2015 was filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 against the petitioner and other accused persons.

¶21

7. The learned counsel submits that arising out of the same incident with slightly different version, different cases have been filed. The other two cases have already been quashed by this Court and the present case has been filed with a malafide intent and it is a clear case of

¶22

¶23

malicious prosecution for almost similar set of allegations with little bit of difference. The Opposite Party No. 2 has been filing cases either herself or through her husband.

¶24

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that essentially the dispute is in connection with one school and the Opposite Party No. 2 is acting in a malicious manner and filing criminal cases giving criminal colour to the dispute. The learned counsel has referred to the three cases and claimed that they arise out of the same incident. The learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments: -

¶25

(i) (1988) 1 SCC 692 Paragraph 7

¶26

(ii) (2002) 3 SCC 89 paragraphs 6 and 8

¶27

(iii) 2022 SCC Online Del 245 Paragraphs 13, 14 & 15

¶28

(iv) (2020) 13 SCC 435 paragraphs 10 to 16

¶29

(v) 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1582 paragraph 23

¶30

(vi) 2023 SCC OnLine SC 948

¶31

(vii) 2023 SCC Online SC 950

¶32

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that aforesaid judgments deal with general principle of law with regard to quashing of criminal cases. He has submitted that the celebrated judgment of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal has been consistently followed in the case of malicious prosecution. It has been held that in an appropriate case falling under one or the other category mentioned in the aforesaid judgement, it is the duty of the High Court to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse to the process of law. He has also submitted that in a case of malicious prosecution, there is no point saying that the person should face the trial and get acquittal. He has also submitted that there is no point saying that the matter has to be considered at the stage of discharge. The learned counsel has submitted that on the face of allegations made in the three complaint petitions, it is apparent that there are almost similar allegations for which three different cases have been filed one after another only to harass the petitioner.

¶33

¶34

10. The learned counsel thereafter has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2020) 13 SCC 435 Paragraphs 10 to 16 and submits that the said judgment specifically deals with a case of malicious prosecution. The learned counsel further referred to the judgment reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1582 paragraph 23; 2023 SCC OnLine SC 948 and 2023 SCC Online SC 950 to submit that it is the duty of the court to protect its citizens from vexatious proceedings. The learned counsel submits that considering the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, the entire criminal proceeding including the order on cognizance be set aside.

¶35

Argument on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2

¶36

11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 (the complainant) has submitted that at the stage of challenge to the order taking cognizance, the allegations made in the complaint and the inquiry witnesses are required to be taken into consideration. He has also submitted that so far as the complainant is concerned, the present case is the only case which has been filed by her in which the petitioner is an accused person.

¶37

12. The learned counsel submits that so far as the complaint case No. 426 of 2017 filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 is concerned, the same was lodged for the offence under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and has been quashed in Cr.M.P. No. 2119 of 2022, but in the said case, the present petitioner was not a party and the said case was not lodged against the present petitioner.

¶38

13. With respect to the other complaint case which was numbered as G.R. Case No. 538 of 2015, the learned counsel submits that the said case was quashed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 241 of 2017 in which the husband of Opposite Party No. 2 was the complainant. In the said case, the present petitioner was an accused, but he is not a party in Cr.M.P. 241 of 2017.

¶39

14. The learned counsel has further submitted that the complainant of the present case is required to be cross-examined with respect to the

¶40

¶41

allegations made in the other cases and the allegations made in the other complaint cases are not identical. He has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 and (1988) 4 SCC 655 paragraph 15 .

¶42

15. He has submitted that there are serious allegations made against the petitioner and the complaint case may not be quashed. He has also submitted that the petitioner had not even appeared before the learned Court and the matter has remained pending before this Court since 2016.

¶43

Rejoinder Argument on behalf of the Petitioner

¶44

16. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was an interim order in favour of the petitioner and therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to participate in the proceedings. He submits that the present case is a fit case to quash the entire proceeding including the order taking cognizance of the case to prevent the abuse of process of law at the hand of the Opposite Party No. 2.

¶45

Findings of this court.

¶46

17. It is not in dispute that Surendra Kumar Rai (the husband of Dharamshila Devi- the present complainant) was working as Principal in the school, namely, Padmawati Jain Saraswati Shishu Vidya Mandir, Chaibasa. The sequence of events based on the materials placed on record reveal as follows.

¶47

18. Initially one criminal case being Sadar P.S. Case No. 82 of 2015 at Chaibasa for offence under section 341/323/337/34 of IPC was filed on 10.08.2015 by one Ramavtar Sahu alleging that Surendra Kumar Rai (the husband of Dharamshila Devi- the present complainant) was not complying with the transfer order and not handing over the charge to the new principal and who resisted and attacked the informant of the case along with other accused persons in the case. The incident was alleged to have taken place in the school namely, Padmawati Jain Saraswati Shishu Vidya Mandir , Chaibasa. There was allegation of defalcation of Rs. 7 lacs by Surendra Kumar Rai (the husband of

¶48

¶49

Dharamshila Devi- the present complainant) and he refused to hand over charge to the new incumbent namely Krishna Kanta Singh on 08.08.2015 and it was alleged that at his instance numerous persons entered into the school premises with arms, with Lathi and stones to assault. A show cause was also said to have been issued to the husband of the complainant namely Surendra Kumar Rai dated 14.08.2015 as to why he be not dismissed from service while working as the principal of the aforesaid school at Chaibasa.

¶50

19. Vide affidavit dated 22.08.2015 complaint case no. 111 of 2015 was filed at Chaibasa by Surendra Kumar Rai (the husband of Dharamshila Devi- the present complainant) with regards to the alleged incident at Chaibasa on 08.08.2015 and on 09.08.2015 against 19 named accused persons belonging to Vidya Vikas Samiti, Ranchi including the petitioner as accused no. 12 in the said case; Vidya Vikas Samiti was accused no. 20; Sub Divisional Officer Rakesh Kumar Dubey was accused no. 21, Block Development Officer Mukesh Machhuwa was accused no. 22 and police officers were made accused as accused no. 23. The allegation, inter alia are in paragraph nos. 3,4,5 , 11and 14 are quoted as under:-

¶51

“3. That on 03.8.2015 at about 3 P.M. the above named accused persons named in serial no. 1 to 19, all associate of accused no. 20 and few unknown persons forcibly entered into the official chamber of the complainant situated at premises-Padmawati Jain Sarswati Shishu Vidya Mandir Organization at Padmawati Jain Sarswati Shishu Vidya Mandir, Chaibasa, Mohalla-Amla Tola, Police Station Sadar Chaibasa, District-West Singhbhum by breaking all security channel and on pistol point in the fear of instant death, they took blank signature over more than 100 blank pages as well as signature over few stamp papers and blank cheques and snatched cash amount of Rs. 15,000/- from the pocket of the complainant and Rs. 1 lakh from the chamber's locker and or by wrongfully restrain him in his chamber to deliver the same. The complainants somehow saved his life by flee away from his chamber. Prior to signing over aforesaid blank papers and cheques and stamp payer they compelled the complainant to sign over the same failing which be ready to face dire consequences or they will kidnap the complainant for the purpose of his murder.

¶52

¶53

4. That while fleeing away from the official chamber of the complainant on 08.06.2015 at about 3.30 P.M all the accused persons named under serial no. 1 to 19, the complainant saw that all the accused named in serial no. 1 to 19 and 100-150 more unknown persons individually and jointly on provocation of each other were breaking the lock of (i) Main gate of school building, (ii) School auditorium / Hall, (iii) 35 nos. class rooms, (iv) Science laboratory (v) Library and (vi) Computer Room etc. with the help of iron cutter and or chhenni and hammer and ultimately broken the entire locks and entered forcibly into said school building, class rooms, office, laboratory, library etc. and captured and or grabbed the entire school buildings with all infrastructure, furniture's, official records, available cash in locker, cheque books, books of accounts, all worth Rs. 271,30, 364/- as per audited assets as on 31. 3.2014 and Rs. 4,00,00,000/- app. as per un audited assets as on 31.3.2015.

¶54

5. That on the same day 8.8.2015 at about 4.30 to 5 PM, the accused persons under serial no. 1 to 19, physically assaulted the Manju Devi at school premises by using criminal force with the intention of disrobing and teared off her sari compelling her to be naked in a public place as well as same act with Dharmashila Devi. The accused persons were demanding for sexual favors to so many women present thereof and no one came forward to stop this illegal act.

¶55

11. That on 9.8.2015 at about 10 am, the accused no. 1 to 19 illegally disconnected the water supply and electric connections of the residential quarter of the employed teachers and other staff and misbehaved with female members of the said quarter and thereafter thrown the entire house hold articles into road caused damage of more than lakhs rupees and illegal dispossession from their houses.

¶56

14. That the complainant immediately rushed to the local police station Sadar Chaibasa and superintendent of police for registration of first information report but all of them declined to register the same saying that accused no. 21 to 23 were present at the place of occurance and they have instructed not to register the first information report.”

¶57

The matter was sent for investigation by the police numbered as G.R. Case No. 538 of 2015 and upon investigation the police submitted final form stating that the dispute was of civil nature. However, the concerned Magistrate at Chaibasa differed with the final form and took cognizance for offence punishable under Sections 452,454, 354(B), 387, 406, 420, 467, 468, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code

¶58

¶59

and summoned the accused persons to face the trial. The summoning order was challenged by 17 accused persons before the court in Cr. M.P. No. 241 of 2017 and the order taking cognizance was quashed keeping it open to the complainant of the case to file civil case if so advised. In the said case the complainant of the present case and Sanju Devi were shown as witness. It makes no material difference on account of the fact that the petitioner was not a petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 241 of 2017 as the entire criminal case arising out of G.R. No. 538 of 2015 was quashed by this court by recording a finding that the dispute was a civil dispute and that the prosecution was a malicious prosecution for which reference was made to paragraph 102 (7) of the judgement passed in the case of State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 supp (1) SCC 335. The findings in paragraph 9 to 12 of the judgement passed by this court is quoted as under:-

¶60

“ 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as State, the Court has gone through the materials on record. It is an admitted fact that there is dispute with regard to school. O.P. No. 2 has also opened school and the name of the school has been given the same name i.e. Padmawati Jain Vidya Mandir. It appears that due to the name of the school dispute is there that is why police submitted chargesheet showing the case civil in nature. The O.P. No. 2 was dismissed from service by order dated 03.06.2016 and against the said order, the O.P. No. 2 filed appeal before the Tribunal in which he has also lost. Some of the petitioners are members of governing body and are stationed at Patna and Chaibasa. It is very strange how the petitioners came from Patna and Chaibasa and entered into the office of the O.P. No.2 along with members of the governing body and assaulted the O.P. No. 2. After investigation, police has submitted chargesheet disclosing the case civil in nature although, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance looking into the case diary and evidence of witnesses examined by the O.P. No.2. What are the finding to that effect by the learned Court is not disclosed in the cognizance order. It is well settled that even any complaint is filed with an ulterior motive, the High Court is required to exercise its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. In this regard reference may be made to the case of “Vineet Kumar & Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another”, reported in (2017) 13 SCC 369 wherein para 41 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

¶61

“41. Inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart

¶62

¶63

the attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the categories as illustratively enumerated by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or harassment. When there are materials to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceeding under Category 7 as enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal3, which is to the following effect:

¶64

“102. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” Above Category 7 is clearly attracted in the facts of the present case. Although, the High Court has noted the judgment of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, but did not advert to the relevant facts of the present case, materials on which final report was submitted by the IO. We, thus, are fully satisfied that the present is a fit case where the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the criminal proceedings.”

¶65

10. The direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of “ State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal” reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 33 5 particularly para 107(2) attracts the facts of the present case. The court is satisfied to exercise its power under section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance date 09.12.2016 passed by the learned C.J.M., Chaibasa in connection with G.R. Case No. 538 of 2015, pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Chaibasa, is quashed.

¶66

11. So far as civil case in nature is concerned, the Court has not given any finding whether the case is civil in nature or not, that is opened to the O.P. No. 2, if so advised, he will file civil case. 12. This petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, stands dispose d of."

¶67

20. This court finds from the allegation made in the complaint case no. 111 of 2015 (G.R. No. 538 of 2015) that allegation regarding disrobing and tearing off Saree of Manju Devi and Dharamshila Devi (Complainant of the present case) on 08.08.2015 at Chaibasa was made in para 5 of the complaint petition but upon investigation the entire dispute was found to be of civil nature. However, cognizance was taken by the learned magistrate under various sections of IPC including 354B IPC but the order taking cognizance and also the entire criminal case arising out of G.R. No. 538 of 2015 was quashed

¶68

¶69

by this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 241 of 2017 vide order dated 05.04.2022.

¶70

21. The complaint case involved in the present case being complaint case no. 2102 of 2015 was filed just after two days, that is on 24.08.2015 at Ranchi but this time by the opposite party No. 2 (Dharamshila Devi w/o Surendra Kumar Rai) against eight named accused persons including the petitioner and also against 10 to 12 unknown persons. The place of occurrence has been shown as residential house of the complainant situated at Dhurwa Ranchi and also residential house of the complainant and premises of aforesaid school namely, Padmavati Jain Sarswati Sishu Mandir, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum. The offence alleged is under section 354(B)/ 388/ 452/ 506/511/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27(i)&(ii) of Arms Act. The date of occurrence has been disclosed to be 08.08.2015 / 09.08.2015 till date of filing the complaint case. The complainant as well as her husband have been shown as the witnesses apart from others. As per the allegation, the complainant is a house wife and has been residing in the quarter allocated to her husband in the aforesaid school at Chaibasa and stayed there till 5 PM on 09.08.2015 and under compelling circumstances she came to her residential house at Ranchi and has been residing at Ranchi since 09.08.2015 at about 10 PM.

¶71

22. The present complaint is in two parts. The first one is relating to the alleged incident at Chaibasa on 08.08.2015 at about 3PM to 5PM and also relating to the incident at Chaibasa on 09.08.2015 at about 11 AM to 2 PM till the complainant on the same date 09.08.2015 at about 5:10 PM left her house at Chaibasa and rushed to her residential house at Ranchi by Car. The second part of the alleged incident in the complaint is relating to the incident at Ranchi on the same date i.e. 09.08.2015 at about 10:30 PM. The allegations with regard to the incident on 08.08.2015 at 3:00 PM to 5:00 PM till 09.09.2015 at 11 PM is as under :-

¶72

“2. That on 8.8.2015 at about 3.00 PM to 5 PM , the accused persons named under serial no. 1 to 8 and 10-12 unknown

¶73

¶74

persons, physically assaulted the complainant at school premises by using criminal force with the intention of disrobing and made attempt to tear off her dresses saree and further tired off her wearer blouse which exposed the private part breast and compelling her to be naked in a public place. The complainant in fear of instant miss-happening and feeling shyness got mentally shocked and could not tell this illegal act inclusive outrage of her modesty to any one in family on the same day.

¶75

3. That on 9.8.2015 at about 11 AM to 2 PM , all the named accused no. 1 to 8 along with 10-12 unknown persons, forcibly entered into her residential house in absence of her husband and started abusing her in filthy languages and they all made demand for sexual favors and on denial they all on pistol point in the fear of instant death compelled her to write one application in the name of Principal of said school and forced to write the text as "my husband has been transferred to elsewhere and due to he is out of station I am unable to vacate the allotted residential house in her husband's name and I shall vacate the allotted house within 2-3 days. So kindly allow me to take my SCORPIO vehicle with few dressing cloths to take out". It is pertinent to mention herein that the petitioner's husband has never been transferred by authorized and legal appointing authority and as such this application is nothing but forged.

¶76

The complainant under compel and in the fear of instant death, left the allotted residential house on the same day at 5.10 P.M and rushed to her another residential house situated at Ranchi by said SCORPIO car with driver.

¶77

4. That the complainant reached at 10.30 P.M (night) on the same day at her another residential house situated at Quarter no. DT - 1366, Dam Side, Dhurwa, Ranchi. On the same at 11.00 P.M (night) the named accused persons under serial no. 1 to 8 and 1012 unknown persons, by chasing her from Chaibasa to Ranchi came at Ranchi and forcibly entered into her residential house, armed with deadly weapon and once again tea red off her blouse, exposed breast and once again made attempt to tear off her dressed saree with intention to observe her private part and making MMS to expose the same amongst so many persons but somehow the complainant flee away from the back door of the house and saved herself.

¶78

5. That after above stated incidence, on each and every day, while the complainant used to come outside from house for marketing of vegetables and other daily uses articles, few unknown persons always threaten her not to register FIR against named accused persons under serial no. 1 to 8, failing which they will kidnap her for the purpose of murder.”

¶79

¶80

The named accused persons in the complaint petition are as under:-

¶81

1. Rajesh Kumar Gupta

¶82

2. Ramavtar Sahu

¶83

3. Krishna Kumar Singh

¶84

4. Neeraj Lal

¶85

5. Onkar Prasad Sinha

¶86

6. Ramesh Mani Pathak

¶87

7. Diwakar Ghosh

¶88

8. Anil Kumar Mishra

¶89

23. The complainant in her solemn affirmation stated that the incident is of 09.08.2015 at 11 PM night that Krishna Kumar Singh (accused No. 3), Ramavtar Sahu (accused No. 2), Rajesh Kumar Gupta (accused No.1), Neeraj Lal (accused No. 4), Sashi Kanta Dubey [not named in the complaint] , Diwakar Ghosh (accused No.7), Ramesh Mani Pathak (accused No.6) and others entered into her house when she was entering the house and the accused persons had gun in their hand. She has alleged that they started pulling her Saree and the Saree got untied and two persons namely Diwakar Ghosh and Neeraj Lal started taking her photograph. She has further stated in her solemn affirmation that on 08.08.2015 she was in Chaibasa and Ramavtar Sahu (accused No. 2) and Krishna Kumar Singh (accused No. 3) had taken her signature on blank page and on that day, they disconnected the electricity connection and water connection. Somehow, she could save her life but the accused persons followed the complainant till Ranchi and entered into her house in Ranchi. In the response to the query of the court, she has stated that she is not aware if there is any dispute going on between her and the accused persons.

¶90

24. Two enquiry witnesses were examined namely Sanju Devi and Baleshwar Tiwari. So far as enquiry witness Baleshwar Tiwari is concerned, he happens to be the neighbour of the complainant at Ranchi and he has supported the case of the complainant and claimed to have seen the complainant in half naked condition when she approached him on 09.08.2015 at 11 P.M. and knocked his door while screaming. So far as other enquiry witness namely Sanju Devi is concerned, she is a witness relating to the incident on 08.08.2015 and

¶91

¶92

09.08.2015 at Chaibasa. She has stated that on 08.08.2015 a few people including the petitioner had misbehaved with the complainant and tried to tear her saree and on 09.08.2015 while she was taking her child to the hospital, one Neeraj Lal had assaulted her husband and abused him. She has also stated that on 09.08.2015 the complainant somehow reached Ranchi and on 10.08.2015 she ranged and told her that her saree got torn. She has also stated that when she was trying to save her husband her saree also got torn. She has stated that the incident of 09.08.2015 had occurred at Chaibasa.

¶93

25. The learned Court at Ranchi while taking cognizance recorded that it transpired that all the accused persons named in the complaint used criminal force to complainant with intent to disrobe her on 09.08.15 by entering into the room armed with deadly weapon & tried to outrage her modesty and the learned Court found sufficient material to proceed against the named accused persons in the complaint for offence under section 354(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Court did not find sufficient material to proceed under section 388/452/506/511/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27(i) & (ii) of Arms Act. The learned Court took cognizance of offence against all the named accused persons in the complaint vide order dated 01.02.2016 as under:

¶94

“Order dated 01.02.2016

¶95

Today case record fix for order on point of issuance of process against the accused persons. Complainant namely Dharmshila Devi filed complain case against accused namely Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Ramavtar Sahu, Krishna Kumar Singh, Neeraj Lal, Onkar Pd. Sinha, Ramesh Mani Pathak, Diwar Ghose & Anil Kumar Mishra.

¶96

Complaint case in brief is that as dated 09.08.15 all the accused persons entered into the room armed with deadly weapon & tried to outrage her modesty. Accused persons tried to unclothen her. Two accused persons taking photograph of complainant. On dt. 08.08.15 while complainant was at Chaibasa then accused persons took her signature on blank paper. Accused persons cut light & water connection of complainant. The accused persons follow up complainant from Chaibasa to Ranchi.

¶97

¶98

In support of her case, complainant examined herself alongwith two inquiry witnesses namely Sanju Devi, Baleshwar Tiwari. Heard both said perused the case record from which transpires that accused persons named above used criminal force to complainant with a intend to disrobe her. Therefore, I find sufficient material to proceed u/s 354(B) of I.P.C. against all the accused persons named above. I did not find sufficient material to proceed u/s 388/452/506/511/120(B)/34 of I.P.C. & sec- 27 of (i) & (ii) of Arms Act. Complainant directed to file requisite.

¶99

O/C hereby directed to issue process against all the accused persons named in complain petition u/s-354(B) of I.P.C. after filing requisite by the complainant.”

¶100

26. The alleged incident in the complaint commenced in Chaibasa on 08.08.2015 at 3:00 PM to 5:00 PM followed by more incident at Chaibasa on 09.08.2015 till around 5.00 P.M. and then followed by incident at Ranchi on 09.09.2015 at 11 PM after the complainant rushed from Chaibasa to Ranchi and reached Ranchi on 09.09.2015 at about 10.30 P.M. It was alleged that the accused persons entered her house at Ranchi and tried to disrobe her.

¶101

27. So far as the allegation in the present complaint relating to the incidents at Chaibasa on 08.08.2015 and 09.08.2015 are concerned, neither the same have been supported by the complainant in her solemn affirmation nor the learned court has taken cognizance with regards to the incidents at Chaibasa. Further, this Court has already recorded a finding that the allegation was made by Surendra Kumar Rai (the husband of Dharamshila Devi- the present complainant) in which the present complainant was a witness in complaint case filed at Chaibasa being complaint case no. 111 of 2015 (G.R. No. 538 of 2015) regarding disrobing and tearing off Saree of Manju Devi and Dharamshila Devi (Complainant of the present case) in para 5 of the complaint and upon investigation by police the dispute was found to be of civil nature, still cognizance taken under various sections of IPC including 354B IPC but the order taking cognizance and also the entire criminal case arising out of G.R. No. 538 of 2015 was quashed by this court in Cr. M.P. No. 241 of 2017 vide order dated 05.04.2022

¶102

¶103

by holding that the dispute was a civil dispute and was a case of malicious prosecution. The findings of this court while quashing the criminal case has been already quoted above.

¶104

28. Further, the impugned order reveals that the learned court has taken cognizance with respect to the alleged incident on 9.8.2015 at around 11.00 pm. which was relatable to the incident at Ranchi as per the complainant and also the solemn affirmation of the complainant.

¶105

29. The learned Court took cognizance with respect to all the named accused persons of the complaint. This court finds that although the complainant had named the petitioner in the complaint petition as accused no.8 but in the solemn affirmation the complainant made allegations against other named accused persons by specifically taking their name but neither took the name of the petitioner nor made any allegation against the petitioner. Instead, the complainant specifically named the other named accused of the complaint except the petitioner and had specifically named one Sashi Kanta Dubey who is not a named accused of the complaint. No allegation was made against the petitioner in the solemn affirmation of the complainant or in the deposition of the enquiry witnesses. However, the learned court while taking cognizance has included all the named accused persons of the complaint including the petitioner but cognizance has not been taken against said Sashi Kanta Dubey. The learned court did not find material to proceed under other alleged offence including 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the learned Court failed to take into consideration that the complainant / enquiry witnesses neither named the petitioner during enquiry nor alleged any act much less any overt act against the petitioner in connection with the alleged incident of attempting to disrobe the complainant on 9.8.2015 at around 11.00 pm. Admittedly, the alleged incident on 9.8.2015 at around 11.00 pm. which was relatable to the incident at Ranchi. Further, even in the complaint there is no specific allegation against the petitioner. This Court is of the considered view that on the face of the allegations made in the complaint with regards to the incident at Ranchi on

¶106

¶107

09.08.2015, there is no material to proceed as against the petitioner and accordingly, continuation of criminal case as against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

¶108

30. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 01.02.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 2102 of 2015 as against the petitioner is quashed.

¶109

31. Pending, I.A, if any, is closed.

¶110

32. This petition is accordingly allowed.

¶111

33. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail.

¶112

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶113

Binit/Rakesh/

¶114

Anil Kumar Mishra v. The State Of Jhakrhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Mishra v. The State Of Jhakrhand 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

Radha Raman Prasad Vs G.M., Patratu Tharmal Power

Bindu Mahto And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Rajendra Prasad Saundik Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Deputy Commissioner And Ors.

Ratan Lal Vs Ganga Lal

Compoter Yadav Vs the State of Bihar through the Circle Officer Ashok Kumar Jha of Godda Anchal

The Management of Ms Telco Limited through Its Duly Constituted Attorney Shri Rajesh Kumar Das Vs Manorama Shrivastava