Sajid Ali Alias Babu Bhai Vs the State of Jharkhand

(2025:JHHC:29620)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.660 of 2021

------

Sajid Ali @ Babu Bhai, aged about 58 years, son of Late Khurshid Ali, resident of Ranki Muhalla, Ranka Road, Garhwa, P.O. + P.S. Garhwa, District- Garhwa (Jharkhand) … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Abhay Kumar Sinha, son of not known to the petitioner, the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Main Road, Garhwa, P.O., P.S. – Garhwa District- Garhwa, (Jharkhand)

¶8

… Opposite Parties

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Kinkar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Parth S. A. S. Pati, Advocate

¶10

------

¶11

P R E S E N T

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶13

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶14

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to quash the order dated 17.09.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa in connection with Complaint Case No.254 of 2016 by which the protest-cum-complaint petition filed by the petitioner, was dismissed under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. as well as the order dated 29.02.2020 passed in Cr. Revision No.64 of 2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa dismissed the Criminal Revision.

¶15

¶16

Cr. M.P. No.660 of 2021

¶17

(2025:JHHC:29620)

¶18

The brief fact of the case is that the allegation against the opposite party No.2 is that while the opposite party No.2 was posted as Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Garhwa, he entered into an agreement with the petitioner for installation of one Digi Set of 25 KVA and the same was installed. Later on, as per the oral agreement entered into between the petitioner and the opposite party No.2, the petitioner installed a 10 KVA Digi Set. The opposite party No.2 demanded a cut from the bill amount of the Digi Set, which was not paid by the petitioner, hence, the opposite party No.2 with the help of police, due to obstruction in power supply and trip of power in electrical equipment, removed the Digi Set from the premises of the State Bank of India. The complainant first filed Complaint Case No.81 of 2013 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa, which upon being referred to police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., Garhwa P.S. Case No.598 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2449 of 2013 was registered. Police after investigation of the case, submitted Final Report showing lack of evidence. After submission of the Final Report, the petitioner filed protest-cum-complaint which was registered as C- 254 of 2016. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa vide order dated 17.09.2019 considering that the case is basically a case of breach of contract and only a cloak of criminal case has been given to a civil dispute, it did not find any prima facie materials to issue summons to the accused and dismissed the complaint.

¶19

Being aggrieved by the order in the said C-254 of 2016, the petitioner filed Cr. Revision No.64 of 2019 in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa. By the impugned order dated 29.02.2020, the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa

¶20

¶21

Cr. M.P. No.660 of 2021

¶22

(2025:JHHC:29620)

¶23

considering, that the materials in the record do not inspire confidence for issuance of summons under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as no offence is made out, as also considering that the dispute is out and out a civil dispute which has been given a cloak of criminal case, dismissed the Revision.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate has erroneously and illegally dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. ignoring the well settled principle of law that merely availability of the civil remedy cannot preclude the criminal remedy. It is next submitted that the learned Magistrate failed to consider that the opposite party No.2, with dishonest intention, induced the petitioner to install the Digi Set with assurance to make payment to him. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.

¶25

Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that admittedly in terms of the agreement, the petitioner installed the Digi Set. It is next submitted that undisputedly the same was removed by the opposite party No.2 from the premises of the State Bank of India with the help of police; as the performance of the said Digi Set was not satisfactory. So instead of resorting to any civil litigation for recovery of dues, if any, of the petitioner, the petitioner has filed Complaint Case No.81 of 2013 for wrecking vengeance and as the case is at best a case for breach of contract, no offence punishable in law, is made out against the opposite party No.2. Hence, it is submitted that neither the learned Chief

¶26

¶27

Cr. M.P. No.660 of 2021

¶28

(2025:JHHC:29620)

¶29

Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa nor the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa has committed any illegality. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

¶30

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as the matter of course, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Others reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749.

¶31

Now, coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the Digi Set was installed in the premises of the State Bank of India in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. The only allegation against the opposite party No.2 is that the opposite party No.2 violated the terms and conditions of the agreement and did not pay the dues of the petitioner in terms of the said agreement.

¶32

Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the dispute between the parties is a purely civil dispute but none of the offences punishable in law, is made out against the opposite party No.2 even if the entire allegations made against the opposite party No.2 are considered to be true in their entirety.

¶33

Hence, this Court do not find any illegality either in the order dated 17.09.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa or in the order dated 29.02.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa in Cr.

¶34

¶35

Cr. M.P. No.660 of 2021

¶36

(2025:JHHC:29620)

¶37

Revision No.64 of 2019 dismissing the complaint and the criminal revision respectively, as already indicated above, warranting interference of this Court

¶38

in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶39