Jharkhand High Court
Hari Nandan Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 August, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1588 of 2023
Hari Nandan Singh, son of late Budhan Singh, aged about 77 years,
resident of Quarter No. 2363, Sector-4/D, P.O. & P.S.-Sector-4, Bokaro
Steel City, Dist.-Bokaro (Jharkhand), PIN-827004
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Shashi Prakash Singh, s/o Bhuneshwar Singh, Sub-Divisonal
Officer, Chas, P.O.-Chas, P.S.-Pindrajora, Dist.-Bokaro (Accused
No.1)
3. Md. Shamim Uddin, s/o late Mohibuddin, Urdu Translator-cum-
Acting Assistant (Right to Information), Sub-Divisonal Officer,
Chas, P.O.-Chas, P.S.-Pindrajora, Dist.-Bokaro (Accused No.2)
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : In Person
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
For O.P. Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. Navneet Toppo, Advocate
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 25.05.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro whereby and where under, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro has dismissed the complaint petition Cr.M.P. No.1588 of 2023 1 filed on 09.06.2021 by the petitioner in Complaint Case No. 549 of 2021 and further to quash the order dated 23.02.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro in Criminal Revision No. 148 of 2022 whereby and where under, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro has been pleased to dismiss the criminal revision filed on 20.06.2022 by the petitioner and upheld the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in Complaint Case No.549 of 2021.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner who is appearing in person filed Complaint Case No. 549 of 2021 on 10.06.2021 alleging therein that on 18.11.2020 the proposed accused no.1 directed the proposed accused no.2- who is acting assistant not to send any information to the complainant and upon the instruction of the proposed accused no. 1, the proposed accused nos.2, 3 and 4 entered forcibly in the residential house of the complainant and assaulted him on 18.11.2020 between 1:30 pm and 2:30 pm and they also instructed him to receive the copy of the original document after counting and to acknowledge receiving the said documents. When the complainant made objections, the proposed accused persons threatened to lodge a case in police station.
4. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro observed that the S.D.O., Chas was directed to supply the information by postal service but what all he has done is that he has supplied the information sought by the complainant by physically handling over the same through his subordinates. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro also considered that the proposed accused in the case is the S.D.O. Chas Cr.M.P. No.1588 of 2023 2 and the other proposed accused persons are the staff members of his office and the allegations made against them are ornamental and came to the conclusion that there is no prima facie material in the record to constitute the offences punishable under Sections 166, 193, 323, 325, 420, 442, 466, 468, 120B of Indian Penal Code to proceed against the accused persons and dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 25.05.2022 passed in Complaint Case No. 549 of 2021 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, the complainant filed Criminal Revision No. 148 of 2022. The revisional court from the perusal of the materials available in the record observed that, it appears that the complainant-petitioner himself has not fully supported the case and all the three inquiry witnesses examined in this case have also not supported the case as alleged in the complaint and all they have stated are contradictory and the material in the record thus is insufficient to constitute prima facie case as alleged against the proposed accused persons in the complaint and did not find any illegality in the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro and dismissed the revision.
6. It is submitted by the petitioner in person that the opposite party no.2 of this criminal miscellaneous petition being the Public Information Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas has knowingly given incorrect, incomplete and misleading information instead of the information demanded by the petitioner. It is next submitted by the petitioner in person that the petitioner filed first appeal under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act and the Cr.M.P. No.1588 of 2023 3 officers of the State were very angry due to the order dated 11.11.2020 passed by the Additional Collector-Bokaro-cum- First Appellate Authority and the opposite party no.2 in complete connivance with the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro planned conspiracy against the petitioner and decided not to send the information. It is further submitted by the petitioner in person that there is no provision for supplying the information sought under the Right to Information Act, physically by sending messenger at the residence of the petitioner. It is then submitted by the petitioner in person that the materials available in the record of Complaint Case No. 549 of 2021 is sufficient to constitute the offences which has been mentioned in the complaint.
7. The petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition has cast aspersions on oath, against the opposite party no.2 who is a public servant and for obvious reasons this Court do not find it desirable to quote the exact words mentioned at page nos. 35, 39 and 63 of the petition to prevent such words from coming to public domain, for not using the forum of this Court to defame any public servant.
8. It is then submitted by the petitioner in person that the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in Complaint Case No. 549 of 2021 dated 25.05.2022 is an erroneous and biased order.
9. The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit wherein he has reiterated the averments made in the complaint and besides that has quoted some of the ingredients of the offences; alleging commission of which the complaint was filed.
Cr.M.P. No.1588 of 2023 4
10. The petitioner in person places before this Court the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner vs. High Court of Gujarat & Anr. in Civil Appeal No(s). 1966-1967 of 2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 5840 of 2015 in which the point for determination before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was regarding the right of a third party to apply for certified copies to be obtained from the High Court by invoking the provisions of Right to Information Act without resorting to Gujarat High Court Rules prescribed by the High Court of Gujarat and the same has got nothing to do with any criminal proceeding based on a complaint; which is the subject matter of this criminal miscellaneous petition. The petitioner in person next relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. in W.P. (C) No. 38 of 1997 dated 06.05.2014 wherein the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act was under challenge and the constitutional bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India answered the said reference but the ratio of the said judgment is no way related to lis before this Court. The petitioner in person, lastly submits that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
11. Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 on the other hand oppose the prayer made by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that since the criminal revision filed by the petitioner has already been dismissed, this second Cr.M.P. No.1588 of 2023 5 criminal revision in the garb of a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 submits that the petitioner is a chronic litigant having in the habit of filing series of litigation with sole object to harass high ranking officers and to lower the majesty of justice hence, instead of raising any grievance against the orders passed, the petitioner has filed this voluminous petition only for the purpose of casting aspersions on the opposite party nos.2 and 3 and also to cast aspersions on the majesty of the court; by making the veiled imputations against the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro as well, by using words like "match fixing". It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 that since FIR No. 140 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. No. 757 of 2021 is pending against the petitioner hence, the petitioner has filed this case to pressurize the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 for wreaking vengeance and to browbeat them. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 that the averments made in the petition does not amount to fair criticism and hence the averments made in this criminal miscellaneous petition amounts to criminal contempt of the court.
12. When the learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 is making this submission, the petitioner who is appearing in person stands up says that "I will go to Supreme Court and will spend Rs.2,50,000/-there".
Cr.M.P. No.1588 of 2023 6
13. This conduct of the petitioner in person in uttering such words in open court speaks volumes about his tone and tenor as well as his intentions.
14. It is lastly submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 that the complainant-petitioner has not even supported his case in a statement on solemn affirmation nor the ingredients of any of the offences alleged to have been committed is made out, even if the entire allegations made against the opposite party nos.2 and 3 are considered to be true in their entirety; hence this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.
15. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dharampal & Others vs. Smt. Ramshri & Others reported in AIR 1993 Supreme Court 1361 paragraph-4 of which reads as under:-
"4. There is no doubt that the learned Magistrate had committed an error in passing the subsequent orders of attachment when the first attachment was never finally vacated and had revived the moment the revision application filed against it was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. It appears that none of the parties including the Sessions Judge realised this error on the part of the Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge had also committed a patent mistake in entertaining revision application against the fresh orders of attachment and granting interim stays when he had dismissed revision application against the order of attachment earlier. Let that be as it is. The question that falls for our consideration now is whether the High Court could have utilised the powers under Section 482 of the Code and Cr.M.P. No.1588 of 2023 7 entertained a second revision application at the instance of respondent 1. Admittedly respondent 1 had preferred a Criminal Application being Cr. R. No. 180 of 1978 to the Sessions Court against the order passed by the Magistrate on October 17, 1978 withdrawing the attachment.
The Sessions Judge had dismissed the said application on May 14, 1979. Section 397(3) bars a second revision application by the same party. It is now well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code cannot be utilised for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code. Hence the High Court had clearly erred in entertaining the second revision at the instance of respondent 1. On this short ground itself, the impugned order of the High Court can be set aside." (Emphasis supplied) That if a second criminal revision is filed in the garb of a petition invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the same is not to be entertained.
After going through this criminal miscellaneous petition, this Court is of the considered view that this criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed in the garb of a second criminal revision, hence, the petitioner is not maintainable.
16. Otherwise also coming to the facts of this case, this Court do not find any illegality in the order dated 25.05.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro and the order dated 23.02.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro in Criminal Revision No. 148 of 2022; as the allegations made in the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statements of the inquiry witnesses, even if are considered to be true, still the offences alleged in the complaint is not made out against the proposed accused persons of the complaint. It is needless to Cr.M.P. No.1588 of 2023 8 mention, that as has rightly been observed by the learned revisional court below as well as submitted by the learned Public prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, the petitioner has not even fully supported the allegations made in the complaint, in his statement on solemn affirmation. In this criminal miscellaneous petition no specific ground has been agitated by the petitioner as to in what manner, the judgment passed by the revisional court below suffers from any illegality. The main grievance of the petitioner, as it appears from the averments made in this criminal miscellaneous petition as well as the submissions made before this court by him in person, is that the information sought by him under the Right to Information Act, has been sent to him by messenger delivering the required documents in person, instead of the same being sent to the petitioner through the Postal Service. But assuming for the sake of argument, the said allegations are true, still in the considered opinion of this Court, the same will not constitute any offence punishable in any law.
17. This Court because of the discussions made above, has reason to believe that this petition is a vexatious one but keeping in view that the petitioner is appearing in person with the hearing aid and often says that he is not able to hear and understand the proceedings of this Court, this Court leaves it open to the opposite party nos.2 and 3 to resort to appropriate proceedings, if they are so advised, for the aspersions cast upon them by the petitioner.
18. So far as the merit of this criminal miscellaneous petition is concerned, since no justifiable reason could be assigned by the Cr.M.P. No.1588 of 2023 9 petitioner to interfere with the order dated 25.05.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro or the order dated 23.02.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro in Criminal Revision No. 148 of 2022, this Court do not find any merit in this criminal miscellaneous petition.
19. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 13th August, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
Cr.M.P. No.1588 of 2023 10