Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jharkhand High Court

Bimal Kumar Das vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 28 August, 2017

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    Cr. M.P. No. 44 of 2017
                                ---
         Bimal Kumar Das                        .....Petitioner
                             Versus
         1.   The State of Jharkhand
         2.   Sri Shiv Shankar Dubey.       ...   Opposite Parties
                                            ---
         CORAM          : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
                                          ---
         For the Petitioner   : Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate
                              : Mr. Prashant Kumar Sahu, Advocate
         For the State        : A.P.P.
                              ---
         I.A. No. 6929 of 2017

04/28.8.2017

Heard the parties.

This application has been preferred by the petitioner for incorporating a further prayer in the main application in view of subsequent development, by virtue of which, proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been ordered to be issued by the order dated 28.03.2017.

It appears from the prayer made in the main application that the petitioner has challenged the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner.

Since the subsequent prayer, which has been made by the petitioner, has a direct nexus with the prayer made in the original application and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceeding, this application is allowed.

Let I.A. No. 6929 of 2017 be treated as a part of the main application.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to dishonor of cheque, petitioner had filed a complaint case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and only as a retaliation, instant complaint case has been instituted by the O.P. No. 2 stating therein that the petitioner had obtained the cheque by fraud. It has further been submitted that the police had submitted final form and only on a protest petition filed by the O.P. No. 2, cognizance was taken for the offence under sections 379, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel thus submits that subsequent filing of the criminal case is by way of retaliation of the earlier case instituted by the petitioner and being a malicious prosecution, entire criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed and -2- set aside.

Issue notice to O.P. No. 2 as to why this application be not admitted and/or disposed of at the stage of admission itself, for which requisites etc. under registered cover with A/D as well as by ordinary process must be filed by 6th September, 2017.

List this case after appearance of O.P. No. 2 under the heading "For Admission".

Until further orders, there shall be stay of further proceeding in connection with C/1 Case No. 1478 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Jamshedpur.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) Rakesh/