Jharkhand High Court
Shambhu Nath Sahi Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 August, 2023
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1 W.P. (Cr.) No. 154 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No. 154 of 2016
Shambhu Nath Sahi Mishra ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi
4. The Superintendent of Police, Ranchi
5. The Officer-in-Charge, Bero Police Station, District- Ranchi
6. Jhon Khess ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijoy Pratap Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate
Mrs. Bandana Kumari Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ravi Kerketta, S.C.-VI
For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
-----
17/10.08.2023 Heard Mr. Vijoy Pratap Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Mr. Ravi Kerketta, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for respondent no.6.
2. Mr. Vijoy Pratap Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner no.1 namely Mary Pricilla Tigga has left for her heavenly abode and her name was directed to be deleted vide order dated 10.06.2021 and in view of that, this petition is only survive for the petitioner, namely, Shambhu Nath Sahi Mishra.
3. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 05.03.2013, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, whereby, the petition filed for discharge has been rejected in connection with Bero P.S. Case No.43 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. Case No.2834 of 2011, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. The prayer is also made for quashing the order dated 07.06.2016 passed by the learned Judicial 2 W.P. (Cr.) No. 154 of 2016 Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Revision No.29 of 2016, whereby, he has been pleased to affirm the order passed by the learned trial court. The order taking cognizance dated 20.09.2011 is also under challenge. The prayer is also made for quashing the charge-sheet dated 31.08.2011 as well as the entire criminal proceeding.
4. The informant has lodged FIR alleging therein that on 07.06.2011 at about 08:30 A.M., the petitioners were getting the bricks, iron pipe and asbestos lying in Liwana Church premises kept in their godown. On receiving the information of the aforesaid fact the Catholics of Dighia Palli came over there and enquired about the matter and the petitioners started abusing and there was scuffle between the parties and, thereafter, the petitioners ran away and went inside the room. Seeing the mob outside, the petitioners remained in the room until authorities of Bero Police Station and BDO reached the place of occurrence. The police party tried to reconcile the matter between the parties and also resorted to Lathi charge upon the public owning to which some persons were injured amongst which Ignas Khes sustained serious injuries.
5. Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, namely, Shambhu Nath Sahi Mishra was posted as Assistant Teacher of Rajkiya Krit Janta High School, Digia in the district of Ranchi. He further submits that before the year 1970, there was no school for the general public in the village, therefore, the villagers decided to start a school for the children of the village and neighbouring areas and after collecting contribution from villagers, the school was started in the year 1970-71. The villagers also formed a Committee to run and manage the school and they appointed teacher also for providing education to the poor 3 W.P. (Cr.) No. 154 of 2016 villagers. Subsequently the school became very popular and large number of students were admitted in the said school. The said school was started on the land donated by the villagers for the said school. He further submits that on 27.05.1976, the Bihar Secondary Education Board granted permission for establishment of the school. On 16.11.1978, the school was inspected by the Committee of the said Board for approval and affiliation and, thereafter, affiliation was provided. The said Committee found that there were 8 teachers and 2 non-teaching staffs and there were 226 students in the said school and by notification dated 11.02.1982, the said school was taken over by the State Government. He also submits that thereafter several teachers from Government schools were transferred from other places and posted in the said school. The petitioners had also been transferred by the State Government and they were posted in the said school. He submits that after this development, a group of persons applied for declaring the said school as a minority school, which was rejected vide Annexure-11, dated 27.05.2006. Thereafter, the State Government vide notification dated 23.10.2009 cancelled the order of declaration of the said school as nationalized school/Government taken over school/Rajkiya Krit school, which was challenged before this Court by way of filing W.P.(C) No.678 of 2010. Seeing the nature of prayer made in that writ petition, the said civil writ petition was converted into W.P. (PIL) No.678 of 2010. He further submits that vide order dated 20.04.2010, the said writ petition was admitted and status quo with regard to denationalization of the said school was directed to remain effective by the Division Bench of this Court. He further submits that the said writ petition is still pending. He further submits that in this background, only as retaliation the petitioners have been 4 W.P. (Cr.) No. 154 of 2016 implicated in the present FIR, which was the subject matter in this writ petition. He further submits that the allegations are made that the petitioners were taking away the articles of Church and kept the same in godown of the said school. He also submits that the then Principal of the said school has lodged FIR being Bero P.S. Case No.42 of 2011, dated 07.06.2011 at 05:00 P.M., in which, the informant (respondent no.6) has also been made an accused. He further submits that by way of retaliation, the present FIR being Bero P.S. Case No.43/2011 has been lodged on the same day i.e. 07.06.2011 at 09:00 P.M. He submits that the present FIR has been lodged in retaliation of the first FIR, which was lodged by the In- charge Principal of the said school. The allegations are made in the present FIR that the petitioners, who were happened to be Teachers, were taking asbestos, bricks etc. from the Church and kept the same in godown of the said school. He submits that in this background, so far as the petitioner is concerned, no case is made out particularly considering that status quo in regard to denationalization of the said school was passed by the Division Bench of this Court. On these grounds, he submits that the order taking cognizance as well as the order by which the petitioners have not been discharged are bad in law and it is abuse of process of law and this Court may quash the entire criminal proceeding.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for respondent no.6, who is the informant, submits that the allegations are of taking property of the church to the school. He further submits that there were several persons, however, the police has found two petitioners and charge-sheet has been submitted against them. He further submits that the learned trial court as well as the revisional court have rightly dismissed the 5 W.P. (Cr.) No. 154 of 2016 discharge petition as the petitioners have been found to carry the articles of Church. He also submits that several witnesses were examined by the police and, thereafter, charge-sheet has been submitted and that has come in the order passed by the learned revisional court. He further submits that the order passed by the Division Bench has nothing to do with the allegations made in the present FIR. On these grounds, he submits that there is no ground of interfering with the present writ petition.
7. In reply to the above submission of Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that it is impossible to believe that the petitioners, who happened to be Teachers of the school in question, were able to take such heavy things to the premises of the said school, that too one of the petitioner was a lady.
8. Mr. Ravi Kerketta, learned counsel for the State submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted and, thereafter, the learned court has taken cognizance.
9. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the contents of the first FIR, second FIR, the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the order taking cognizance and also the order passed by the learned trial court whereby the discharge petition has been rejected as well as the order passed by the learned revisional court, affirming the order of the learned trial court on the discharge petition. It is an admitted fact that the school in question was open on the efforts of the villagers. Subsequently, the school was taken over by the State Government. An application for declaring the said school as minority school was rejected, however, subsequently declaration of the said school as nationalized school 6 W.P. (Cr.) No. 154 of 2016 was cancelled, which was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.678 of 2010 and the learned Single Judge has been pleased to convert that writ petition into PIL and the said PIL was admitted and status quo order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court. It further appears that on 07.06.2011, the In-charge Principal of the said school has lodged FIR about the hurdle being made by some of the persons including the informant, which is registered as Bero P.S. Case No.42 of 2011 at 05:00 P.M., whereas, the present case, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition was lodged on the same day i.e. 07.06.2011 at 09:00 P.M. The allegations made in the present FIR are of taking away the asbestos, bricks etc. of the Church by the petitioners to the said school. The Court finds force in the argument of Mr. Vijoy Pratap Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that if such articles are there, how two petitioners who are Teachers of the said school can take the said property in the premises of the school, that too one of the petitioner was lady, namely, Mary Pricilla Tigga. Further, the allegation is of keeping the same in the godown of the school in question. This is not a case that the petitioners were trying to take away those property to their own house or they were trying to sell the property.
10. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case, but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. This aspect of the matter has been recently considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahmood Ali & others v. State of U.P. & others in Criminal Appeal No.2341 of 2023 [arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.12459 of 2022] vide 7 W.P. (Cr.) No. 154 of 2016 judgment dated 08.08.2023. Paragraph 12 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:
"12. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged."
11. Now coming back to the facts of the present case. It appears that initially first FIR was lodged by the In-charge Principal of the said school at 05:00 P.M. and on the same day at 09:00 P.M., another FIR was lodged by respondent no.6, who is the informant. The allegations that two persons were taking asbestos, bricks etc. of the Church to the school premises, cannot be believed, particularly considering that the petitioners were 8 W.P. (Cr.) No. 154 of 2016 Teachers of the school and that too, one of the petitioner was lady. Further the allegation is made of keeping the articles in the school premises and not taking away the same to their own house and to sell the same. There is no doubt if the revision petition is rejected, the High Court is not required to interfere with the revisional order sitting under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however, if injustice is done, the High Court can interfere by invoking inherent power of Cr.P.C as well as Constitution of India, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab; (AIR 1960 SC 866).
12. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court finds that maliciously the case has been registered against the petitioner. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 05.03.2013, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, the order dated 07.06.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Revision No.29 of 2016, the order taking cognizance dated 20.09.2011 and the charge-sheet dated 31.08.2011 passed in connection with Bero P.S. Case No.43 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. Case No.2834 of 2011, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi are quashed.
13. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.
14. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, stands vacated.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/ A.F.R.