Jharkhand High Court
Sanjeev Kumar Sinha ? Sanjay Prasad ... vs State Of Jharkhand on 20 April, 2015
Author: D. N. Upadhyay
Bench: D. N. Upadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M. P. No.4920 of 2001
1. Sanjeev Kumar Sinha @ Sanjay Prasad Singh.
2. Narayan Chandra Mahto @ Naryan Mahto.
3. Churamani Mahto.
4. Sheo Lal Raout @ Shibu Raout. .......... Petitioners.
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Anita Devi. .......... Opposite Parties.
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. UPADHYAY
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. P. K. Sahay, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. K. K. Mishra, Advocate
------
09/20.04.2015: This Cr.M.P. has been filed for quashing the order dated 28th June, 2001, by which cognizance for the offence under Sections 347 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners and also for quashing the entire criminal proceeding, arising out of P.C.R. Case No.57 of 2001, pending in the court of leaned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara.
2. The fact of the case, in brief, is that the complainant, who happens to be wife of Gurupada Singh, has contended that on 23rd February, 2001 the accused persons reached to the house and took her husband-Gurupada Singh. When the father-in-law and other witnesses went to the police station to search Gurupada Singh, the Petitioner No.1 asked them to pay money. When the father-in-law and others expressed their inability, Petitioner No.1 disclosed that Gurupada Singh fled away from police station.
3. It is relevant to mention here that Petitioner No.1 was posted as Officer-in-charge of Bindapathar, Nala Police Station within the district of Jamtara, whereas Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 were Chowkidars and were posted within the said police station.
4. Learned Magistrate after holding enquiry took cognizance on 28th June, 2001 against the petitioners, directing them to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 347 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. It is submitted that contentions made in the complaint are false and fabricated. No such incident, as disclosed in the complaint, ever took place. As a matter of fact, one Sarodi Murmu had lodged a written report against Gurupada Singh -2- (husband of the complainant) at Bindapathar Police Station vide Bindapathar P.S. Case No.22 of 2001 dated 27th February, 2001, corresponding to G.R. No.86 of 2001, under Sections 376 and 493 of the Indian Penal Code. At the time when Sarodi Murmu lodged the said case, Petitioner No.1 was posted as Officer-in-charge of that police station. The charge of investigation of the said case was given to Sub Inspector of Police-R. K. Linda and after completing investigation charge sheet was submitted, showing Gurupada Singh as absconder in Column-2. This clearly goes to show that Gurupada Singh had been absconding after institution of the case lodged by Sarodi Murmu. When the police made an attempt to apprehend him in connection with this case, the wife of said Gurupada Singh lodged this complaint to create pressure and for wrecking vengeance. It is a malicious prosecution against the petitioners, who are Government employees, and they have been discharging their duties according to law.
6. The complainant has not assigned any reason as to why the petitioners would kidnap or secretly confine her husband. No motive behind the alleged act has been assigned by the complainant and, therefore, it can well be observed that only to create pressure against police, instant complaint has been lodged so that husband of the complainant would be set free.
7. Lastly it is pointed that Gurupada Singh was later arrested in connection with the case and he faced trial and convicted. If such complaint is permitted to continue, moral of police officer will go down and they would not dare to act in accordance with law against wrong doer(s).
8. Counsel appearing for the complainant/Opposite Party no.2 has submitted that contentions made by the complainant has well been substantiated by the witnesses examined during enquiry and the learned Magistrate after considering the statements of the witnesses recorded during enquiry has rightly taken cognizance and directed the petitioners to face trial for the offence alleged. The motive is well described in the complaint petition itself that the petitioners were demanding illegal gratification for accommodating Gurupada Singh.
-3-9. Be that as it may it is not disputed that Gurupada Singh was named accused in Bindapathar P.S. Case No.22 of 2001 registered on 27th February, 2001 under Sections 376 and 493 of the Indian Penal Code and he did not appear till submission of the charge sheet and shown absconder in Column-2 of the charge sheet.
10. Present complaint was filed on 3rd March, 2001 by the wife of said Gurupada Singh i.e. after institution of the said case only because the Officer-in-charge, Petitioner no.1, and other police official(s) had been taking action.
11. The facts pointed out before me clearly cover one of the grounds as indicated in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. The complainant has lodged the complaint only in order to create pressure against the petitioners, who are Government officials, for vengeance and the same appears to be a malicious prosecution.
12. In the circumstances, I do not feel inclined to allow the criminal prosecution of the petitioners initiated vide P.C.R. Case No.57 of 2001 and order dated 28th June, 2001 passed in the said case cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, order dated 28th June, 2001 and entire criminal proceedings, arising out of P.C.R. Case No.57 of 2001, stand quashed.
13. This petition is allowed.
(D. N. Upadhyay, J.) Sanjay/