Allowed

Heera Kant Jha and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC2 Mar 2015CR. MISC./1801/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court quashed the order of cognizance in Complaint Case No. 1058(C)/2003. The court held that the complaint arising from a long-standing land dispute was unsubstantiated for serious charges like murder and kidnapping, with cognizance taken only under a minor section.

What did the court decide?

The order of cognizance dated 16.08.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1058(C) of 2003 was quashed.

Heera Kant Jha and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1801 of 2012

¶3

Arising Out of Complaint Case No. 1058(C)/2003 Thana – District- PATNA =========================================================== 1. Heera Kant Jha, S/O Late Ram Kishore Jha, Resident Of Village Bathai, P.S. Manigachhi, District Darbhanga, At Present Working As University Professor in the Department of Botany, Marwari College, Darbhanga. 2. Lila Kant Jha, S/O Late Ram Kishore Jha, Resident of Village Bathai, P.S. Manigachhi, District Darbhanga, at present working as Clerk in District Treasury Office, Deoghar (Jharkhand). 3. Beena Devi, W/O Sri Heera Kant Jha, Resident of Village Bathai, P.S. Manigachhi, District Darbhanga. 4. Mona Jha, W/O Sri Lila Kant Jha, Resident Of Village Bathai, P.S. Manigachhi, District Darbhanga, at present residing at Deoghar, District Deoghar (Jharkhand). 5. Bala Kant Jha @ Pawan Kumar Jha @ Bala Jha, S/O Sri Kanhaiya Jha, Resident of Village Bathai, P.S. Manigachhi, District Darbhanga.

¶4

.... .... Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Bihar

¶7

Ram Krishna Jha, S/O Late Satya Narayan Jha, Resident of Village Bathai, P.S. Manigachhi, District Darbhanga, at present Residing at Mohalla Makhdumpur, P.S. Digha, District Patna.

¶8

.... .... Opposite Parties

¶9

=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 02-03-2015

¶10

The Petitioners seek quashing of the order
of cognizance dated 16.08.2008 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna in Complaint
Case No. 1058 (C) of 2003.

¶11

The case of the complainant is that there
is enmity between the parties for the last 23 years
since the accused persons had misappropriated his
entire property and also committed murder of his

¶12

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1801 of 2012 dt.02-03-2015

¶13

¶14

second wife and son. The trial is presently going
on. In some other cases some of the accused persons
are still absconding. As for the present occurrence,
it is stated that the accused persons came with arms
and started looking for him to commit his murder at
which he ran away. But his nephew, aged about ten
years, was kidnapped. The accused persons thereafter
threatened him that if he will not withdraw the
earlier case, his nephew would not be returned. His
brother was assaulted by the accused persons, who
committed theft of his personal property. When he
approached the Officer-in-Charge of the local Police
Station, he expressed his inability to intervene in
the matter since the complainant was in the habit of
complaining to the higher officials and hence did
not institute any substantive case. It was then that
the present complaint was filed.

¶15

Even though the complaint was instituted
under Sections 323, 395 and 365/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, cognizance was taken only under Section
448 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that as stated in the complaint petition
there is a long standing enmity between the parties
on account of property dispute. This has led to
institution of a number of cases by the complainant.

¶17

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1801 of 2012 dt.02-03-2015

¶18

¶19

In some of which adverse remarks has been passed by
the Court. With regard to the present complaint, the
manner in which the complainant is harassing the
petitioners is evident from the fact that earlier
one Complaint Case No. 1861C of 2004 was instituted
against the Petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 5 and others
with regard to kidnapping, extortion and dacoity. As
against the order of the cognizance, the Petitioner
nos. 1 and 3 moved before this Court vide Cr. Misc.
No. 16149 of 2006, which matter was admitted for
hearing on 31.10.2006 in which final order has been
passed quashing the proceeding on 04.07.2013. This
complaint which was filed three years earlier on
12.05.2013 was not pressed till such time as stay
was not granted by this Court in the aforementioned
case. It is evident from the allegation in the
complaint petition that it is not only absurd but
also malicious. The position of the petitioners is
that the Petitioner No. 1 is a University Professor,
the Petitioner No. 2 is a Clerk in the Treasury
Office and Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are their wives.

¶20

On the other hand, the counsel for the
complainant submits that the co-accused persons are
declared absconders and despite the direction of
this Court, they have not yet surrendered.

¶21

To this, the counsel for the petitioners

¶22

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1801 of 2012 dt.02-03-2015

¶23

¶24

points out that after the aforesaid order was passed
in November, 2011 they immediately moved an
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on 10.01.2012
and subsequently they were given interim protection
by this Court.

¶25

I find that even though one Bench of this
Court directed the petitioners to surrender before
the court below after having been declared
absconder, another Bench of this Court gave them
interim protection on account of the lapses of the
counsels. However, on going through the facts of the
complaint petition, I would be inclined to hold
that land disputes between the parties has led to
filing of this complaint petition. Also major
portion of the complaint remained unsubstantiated on
account of which cognizance was not taken under
Section 395/368/34 I.P.C. but only under minor
Sections allegations with regard to which it was
loosely and routinely levelled.

¶26

 Hence, the proceeding including the order
of cognizance dated 16.08.2008 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna in Complaint
Case No. 1058 (C) of 2003.

¶27

However, the quashment of the proceeding
shall have no bearing on any other claims to the
parties in any manner.

¶28

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1801 of 2012 dt.02-03-2015

¶29

¶30

The Application stands allowed.
(Anjana Prakash, J.)
Vats/-
U T

Heera Kant Jha and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Heera Kant Jha and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shailesh Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Amod Rai Vs The State Of Bihar

Md. Sawood Alam Vs The State Of Bihar

Ashok Kr. Sinha and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Ajay Kumar and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar

Niraj Kumar Vs the State of Bihar