Jharkhand High Court
Santosh Kumar Choudha vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 16 September, 2020
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 3920 of 2020
------
Santosh Kumar Choudha ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, Sr. Advocate
For the State : Mr. S.K. Dubey, Addl. P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
------
Order No.02 Dated- 16.09.2020
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown period is over.
In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Patan P.S. Case No.38 of 2019 registered under sections 384/389/406/420/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
The Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the Water Ways Division, Medininagar, in the district of Palamau floated a tender for executing work of Extension, Restoration and Modernization of Jinjoy irrigation scheme under the district of Palamau for Rs.35,18,11,422/- with a mandatory condition that only the firm and contractor who has earlier experience of a single work done worth 50% of the said value of the Rs. 35,18,11,422 /- would be eligible to submit the bid. It is next submitted that the petitioner being the partner of M/s S.S. Infrastructure Co., has forged documents with intention to cheat Water and Irrigation Department, Medininagar by furnishing a forged and fabricated document of past experience of having constructed a Anikat (Check dam) over Mand river vide tender no.1797 and the claiming worth of the said work to be 18,65,50,000/- though in fact, the said work was for 3,40,00,000/-. It is also alleged that the petitioner being the partner of M/s S.S. Infrastructure Co. gave part of the said work to the informant as subcontract for Rs.3,50,00,000/- but the petitioner has cheated the informant by not paying the amount. It is next submitted that the informant earlier filed writ petition being W.P. (C) No.3087 of 2018 and a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.08.2018 dismissed the writ petition by observing that the informant herein who was the petitioner in the said writ petition, has not averred in the writ petition that the informant participated in the tender in question and if the work in question is wrongly being awarded by the State in favour of the petitioner of this anticipatory bail application, the informant cannot be said to have been aggrieved hence, the informant has no locus standi to maintain the said writ petition and dismissed the same. It is also submitted that in view of the said observation of the coordinate Bench of this Court, the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint which upon being forwarded under Section 156 (3), this FIR has been registered. It is next submitted that the informant is involved in several criminal cases and the firm of the petitioner has completed 95% of the work. It is also submitted that though it has been wrongly mentioned in paragraph no.12 of this anticipatory bail application that M/s S.S. Infrastructure Co. is a company but in fact, the same is a partnership firm. It is next submitted that there is no agreement between the parties as averred in paragraph no.11 of the complaint and the dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the informant opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that there is serious allegation against the petitioner of forging of documents in collusion with the Executive Engineer, Water Ways Division, Medininagar and other persons in the higher echelon of the Government by facilitating the petitioner and his firm to defraud the State of Jharkhand of huge amount of money by getting the said work allotted to the petitioner though he was not even eligible to participate in the said tender, for not fulfilling the eligibility criteria of having earlier experience of a single work done worth 50% of the said value of the Rs. 35,18,11,422 /-. It is next submitted that during investigation the witnesses have stated about illegality committed by the petitioner as part of wider conspiracy and during investigation it was also found by police that the petitioner has paid much less income tax than the tax he was supposed to pay for the work he claims to have carried out. It is next submitted that as the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation of the case hence, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against him though the same has been quashed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in criminal miscellaneous petition, but the I.O. of the case found his house to be locked on several occasion during the course of investigation. It is then submitted that in view of the serious nature of allegation, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the locus standi of the informant to file the complaint which led to registration of this FIR is concerned, the same is without any merit;
Firstly because it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that anyone can set or put the criminal law into motion except where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary. The scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages two parallel and independent agencies for taking criminal offences to court. Even for the most serious offence of murder, it was not disputed that a private complaint can, not only be filed but can be entertained and proceeded with according to law. Locus standi of the complainant is a concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence save and except that where the statue creating an offence provides for the eligibility of the complainant, by necessary implication the general principle gets excluded by such statutory provision as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, (1984) 2 SCC 500(Paragraph -6); and Secondly because in the complaint the informant has alleged that he was cheated interalia by the petitioner personally also.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of being in conspiracy with the officers and others persons in the higher echelons of the state government having defrauded the state government of huge amount of money and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) AFR-Sonu/Gunjan-