Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Harinarayan @ Harish Sankrityayan ... vs State Of Jharkhand on 14 February, 2022
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr.M.P. No. 1809 of 2018
----
Dr. Harinarayan @ Harish Sankrityayan Chaturvedi @ Hari Narayan Chaturvedi @ Harish Sankrityayan, aged about 95 years, son of late K.N. Chaturvedi, resident of Village -Bankheta, PS-Ramgarh, PO -Ramgarh, District -Ramgarh (Jharkhand) ..... Petitioner
-- Versus --
1.State of Jharkhand
2.Shiv Prasad Sahu, son of Sri Kishun Sahu, resident of village Anandi, PO Baridih, PS Ormanjhi, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) ....... Opp.Parties With Cr.M.P.No.3171 of 2018
----
Baban Choubey, aged about 66 years, son of late Muput Choubey, Adarsh Nagar, Kokar, PS-Sadar, PO-Lalpur, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) ...... Petitioner
-- Versus --
1.State of Jharkhand
2.Shiv Prasad Sahu, son of Sri Kishun Sahu, resident of Village-Anandi, PO-Baridih, PS -Ormanjhi, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) ...... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioners :- Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Niki Sinha, Spl.P.P Mr. Tapas Roy, A.P.P. For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate
----
8/14.02.2022 These petitions have been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.
2. Both the petitions are arising out of the same F.I.R., that is why, both the petitions have been heard together. So far the ground of age of the petitioner is concerned, that is not in consideration so far 2 Cr.M.P.No.3171 of 2018 is concerned.
3. These petitions have been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Ramgarh P.S.Case No.334/2016 (corresponding to G.R.No.1133/2016) including the order taking cognizance dated 01.12.2017, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh for the offences punishable under sections 147, 427, 379, 384, 34 IPC, pending in the same court.
4. The written report of the informant Sri Shiv Prasad Sahu is the basis of the F.I.R. wherein it is alleged that the informant and one Sanjay Kumar Singh are resident of Ramgarh under Ormanjhi P.S. It was claimed that they (seemingly the informant and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh) purchased a piece of land admeasuring 1.17 acre situated at Village Bankheta, District Ramgarh under Khata No.30, Plot No.1201 from its owner vide registered sale deed no.1449 dated 09.05.2016. The land got mutated in their name vide Rent Fixation Case No.2/2015-16 and jamabandi was also opened in their name after entering their name in Register -II at page no.95/3. It has been further stated that the petitioner had also initiated a proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C against them in the court of Sub Divisional Officer, Ramarh vide Case No.82/2016. [Dr. Harinarayan Chaurvedi Vs. Shiv Prasad Sahu & Ors.] Upon hearing both the parties, the court passed order in their (informant's) favour by passing order of restraintment against the petitioner.
5. It has been alleged that on the aforesaid piece of land, they got constructed a house and boundary after having spent Rs.6 lakhs, which was got demolished on 2.10.2016 by Dr. Harinarayan Chaturvedi (the petitioner herein) and one Baban Choubey and about 80-100 persons which caused financial loss to them (informant). It has been further alleged that Rs.5 lakh was demanded as extortion and 3 threatening of dire consequences was extended. Besides that, articles kept in the house, one door, one window, 20 bags of cement, 20 kadhahi made of iron, 10 nos. of belcha, 7 nos. of spade and other articles worth Rs.25,000/- was also taken away.
6. Lastly, request was made by the informant to take legal action against the petitioner and other accused persons. Request was also made to ensure their safety in order to protect any mishappening.
7. With the written report, documents enclosed were copy of sale deed (no.1473/1449 dated 9.5.2015); copy of rent fixation (order); copy of rent receipt; copy of order (dated 29.6.2016) passed under section 144 Cr.PC; and copy of Khatian.
8. Accordingly, F.I.R was instituted on 04.10.2016 which was registered as Ramgarh P.S.Case No.334/2016 (corresponding to G.R.No.1133/2016) against (i) Dr. Harinarayan Chaturvedi and (ii) Baban Choubey (the petitioners herein) alleging commission of offences punishable under section 427, 379, 384, 34 IPC.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier one proceeding was initiated under section 144 Cr.PC by the petitioners against the O.P.no.2. He submits that restriction order was passed and due to efflux of time that order has expired as it was valid only for 60 days. He further submits that the charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioners alleging commission of offence punishable under sections 147, 427, 379, 384, 34 IPC. He submits that this is a counter blast case filed against the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 1809 of 2018, who at the time of filing of F.I.R was 89 years of age. He further submits that now the petitioner is bed-ridden. He further submits that the land in question was purchased by the petitioners in the year 1982. The said sale deed is annexed with the quashing petition as Annexure-4. He further submits that the petitioners have initiated the proceeding earlier 4 and as a counter blast this case has been lodged against the petitioner in a mechanical manner.
10. Mr. Gautam Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2 submits that there are allegations against the petitioners and at this stage, this Court may not look into those documents for quashing the cognizance order.
11. The Court has gone through the materials on record. The sale deed, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is in favour of the petitioners, which is of the year 1982. The petitioner in Cr.M.P.No.1809 of 2018 at the time of lodging of F.I.R was of 89 years age and now he is about 92 years of age.
12. Whether the allegations made in the F.I.R can sustain on a person who was 89 years of age at the time of filing of F.I.R is one of the aspect to be looked into. There is no doubt that under section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to look into other materials as defence and come to the conclusion that no case is made out against the petitioner, however, if it is in the opinion of the Court that this is an abused of process of the Court, the Court can quash the proceeding. If the cogent materials are on the record which are not disputed, the Court can look into that materials. A reference may be made to the case of "Rajiv Thapar and Others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor" reported in (2013) 3 SCC 330. Paragraph nos.29 and 30.1, 30.2, 30.3, 30.4 and 30.5 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:
"29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in 5 the High Court under section 482 Cr.PC at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution's /complainant's case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash such criminal proceedings for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice.
xxxx xxxx 30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions 6 contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false?
30.3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?
30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?
30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused."
13. A reference may also be made to the case of "State of Karnataka v. L.Muniswamy and Others" reported in (1977) 2 SCC 699. Paragraph no.7 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:
"7. The second limb of Mr Mookerjee's argument is that in any event the High Court could not take upon itself the task of assessing or appreciating the weight of material on the record in order to find whether any charges could be legitimately framed against the respondents. So long as there is some material on the record to connect the accused with the crime, says the learned counsel, the case must go on and the High Court has no jurisdiction to put a precipitate or premature end to the proceedings on the belief that the prosecution is not likely to succeed. This, in our opinion, is too broad a proposition to accept. Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 2 of 1974, provides that:
"If, upon consideration of the record of the case 7 and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing."
This section is contained in Chapter 18 called "Trial Before a Court of Session". It is clear from the provision that the Sessions Court has the power to discharge an accused if after perusing the record and hearing the parties he comes to the conclusion, for reasons to be recorded, that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The object of the provision which requires the Sessions Judge to record his reasons is to enable the superior court to examine the correctness of the reasons for which the Sessions Judge has held that there is or is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The High Court therefore is entitled to go into the reasons given by the Sessions Judge in support of his order and to determine for itself whether the order is justified by the facts and circumstances of the case. Section 482 of the New Code, which corresponds to Section 561-A of the Code of 1898, provides that:
"Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding 8 ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction."
14. The Court has perused the cognizance order dated 01.12.2017. This order is not an speaking order. Moreover, the word 'cognizance' has been filled up in the said order which suggest that on a format the learned court has filled up the word cognizance. It is well settled that for taking cognizance, the Court is not required to pass a detailed order, however, in the said order prima facie materials against the accused are required to be disclosed which is lacking in the case in hand.
15. In view of the above discussion, the cognizance order dated 01.12.2017 arising out of Ramgarh P.S.Case No.334/2016 (corresponding to G.R.No.1133/2016) passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh, pending in the same court is hereby set aside.
16. The matter is remitted back to the concerned court to pass a fresh order in the light of the discussions made hereinabove.
17. Cr.M.P. No.1809 of 2018 and Cr.M.P. No.3171 of 2018 stand disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J) SI/,