Jharkhand High Court
Prasant Patar @ Prasanta Pater vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 August, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2025:JHHC:26351 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3008 of 2023
------
1. Prasant Patar @ Prasanta Pater, aged about 57 years, S/o Nimai Sunder Patar, resident of Village-Sukhjora, P.O. & P.S.-Ranishwar, District-Dumka.
2. Amal Kumar Patar @ Amal Pater, aged about 54 years, S/o Nimai Sunder Patar, resident of Village-Sukhjora, P.O. & P.S.-Ranishwar, District-Dumka.
3. Tusar Pater @ Jagbandhu Pater, aged about 30 years, s/o Amal Kumar Patar, resident of Village-Sukhjora, P.O. & P.S.- Ranishwar, District-Dumka.
4. Biswambhar Pater, aged about 25 years, S/o Prasant Patar, resident of Village-Sukhjora, P.O. & P.S.-Ranishwar, District- Dumka.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Krishna Chandra Mandal, Aged about 59 years S/o Late Bhakti Pado Mandal, resident of Village- Sukhjora, P.O. & P.S. Ranishwar, District- Dumka. ... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate
: Ms. Tanya Rai, Advocate
: Mr. Aayush Ojha, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate
: Ms. Maksuda Khatun, Advocate
: Ms. Rita Kumari, Advocate
: Mr. Rakesh Sharma Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
1 Cr. M.P. No.3008 of 2023
( 2025:JHHC:26351 )
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer for quashing the entire PCR Case No.1105 of 2022 including the order taking cognizance dated 30.09.2022 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dumka has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner no.2 was one of the members of the Committee constituted by the Circle Officer in 2017-18 to manage the 'Sarvajanik Durga Puja' which is held every year near the temple owned by the complainant and the temple being situated on the land belonging to the complainant. The allegation against the petitioners is that after the end of 2017 Durga Puja, the petitioners have forcibly snatched away the gold and silver ornaments of goddess Maa Durga from the said temple on 30.09.2017 at around 10:30 am in presence of the complainant, co-owners and Sebayatas of the said temple.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the year 2017-18, the Committee was constituted by the Circle Officer for management of the annual Puja. It is next submitted that in the Durga temple, Durga Puja is performed every year and the entire villagers of Sukhjora used to participate in the same and even used to offer 'Daan' (gift) of gold and silver ornaments to the deity of Goddess Durga. The ornaments, which were donated by the villagers, were used to be put on the deity of Maa 2 Cr. M.P. No.3008 of 2023 ( 2025:JHHC:26351 ) Durga during Durga Puja and before immersion of the image, the entire ornaments used to be put off from the deity. In the meeting of Puja Samittee, it was decided by the members of the Puja Samittee as well as the villagers to keep the entire ornaments of Maa Durga in the bank locker at S.B.I. Ranishwar Branch, in the name of Petitioner no.2- who is the son of the co-accused Nemai Sundar Pater @ Nemai Sundar Patar and against Nemai Sundar Pater @ Nemai Sundar Patar, the entire criminal proceeding of this case has already been quashed by this Court, vide order dated 01.05.2024 in Cr.M.P. No.242 of 2023. It is next submitted that the father of the petitioner no.1 & 2 is the license holder of Durga Puja for more than 30 years. Every year during the annual Durga Puja, Panditjee Srimath Chakraborty after the Puja, used to put off the ornaments from the deity in presence of police party and the police party used to accompany the jewelry to the bank with the license holder and other villagers till the ornaments are kept in bank locker- which was opened in the year 2017. It is next submitted that the father of the petitioner no.1 & 2 was the Secretary and license holder for performing the Puja and the complainant and others were the members of the said Puja Samittee. The Superintendent of Police, Dumka issued the license for the procession of Durga Puja in the name of the father of the petitioner no.1 & 2. It is next submitted that the petitioners never took away the ornaments of Goddess Durga, hence, the commission of theft does not arise nor is there any allegation of dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners in taking the 3 Cr. M.P. No.3008 of 2023 ( 2025:JHHC:26351 ) ornaments and depositing the same in the bank locker maintained in the name of his son.
5. It is further submitted that on 14.09.2018, a meeting was held in presence of Circle Officer, B.D.O., Officer In-Charge of Ranishwar Police Station and the complainant was also present there along with others and a temporary committee was also constituted in which the father of the petitioner no.1 & 2 was elected as Secretary. The property was purchased for Durga Mata Thakurani by registered sale-deed dated 05.06.2002 in the name of five persons including the father of the petitioner no.1 & 2 and the complainant/opposite party No.2 and in pursuance to the sale-deed, the name of the persons as Sebayats Durga Mata Thakurani, were mutated and entered in Register- II on 11.02.2021 and since then receipt have been granted in the name of the of Durga Mata Thakurani's Sebayat.
6. Drawing attention of this Court towards the supplementary affidavit dated 17.05.2024, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the ornaments which were alleged by the opposite party No.2 to be stolen, were received on 21.10.2023 and the signature of the Sub Inspector of Police posted in Ranishwar Police Station is also appearing in the list of ornaments received by the father of the petitioner no.1 & 2. The committee members and the local administration have handed over the ornaments to petitioner no.2 to keep the ornaments in the locker of the said bank and the same list was signed by Mr. Rajan Jha- Sub Inspector of Police posted in Ranishwar Police Station, the copy of which has been kept at Annexure- 12 of the supplementary affidavit dated 17.05.2024. It is next submitted 4 Cr. M.P. No.3008 of 2023 ( 2025:JHHC:26351 ) that as the petitioners have not permanently deprived the owner of the property or not taken the jewelry for wrongful gain rather they have kept it for safe keeping to be used at the time of annual Durga Puja, hence, it is submitted that even if the allegations made in the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the enquiry witnesses are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners.
7. It is further submitted that though the alleged occurrence took place on 30.09.2017 but the cognizance was taken only on 30.09.2022 i.e. after five year and the complaint petition was filed on 21.06.2022, hence, cognizance has been taken beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is three years for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years but exceeding one year; during the punishment prescribed for the offence punishable under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M. Siddiq (Dead) Thr. Lrs. (Ram Janmabhumi Temple Case) vs. Mahant Suresh Das & Others reported in (2020) 1 SCC 1 and submits that if a person is in complete and continuous management of the deity's affairs coupled with long, exclusive and uninterrupted possession of the appurtenant property, such a person may be recognized as a shebait despite the absence of a legal title to the rights of a shebait. Hence, it is submitted that the entire PCR Case No.1105 5 Cr. M.P. No.3008 of 2023 ( 2025:JHHC:26351 ) of 2022 including the order taking cognizance dated 30.09.2022 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dumka has taken cognizance against the petitioners, be quashed and set aside.
9. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and the learned senior counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners to quash and set aside the entire PCR Case No.1105 of 2022 including the order taking cognizance dated 30.09.2022 by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No.2 next submits that the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka vide his order dated 31.03.2021 in Revenue Misc. Petition No.02/2019-20 made a thorough enquiry and has observed that the land in question belongs to the ancestor of the complainant, who donated the land. It is then submitted that the accused persons have no right, title and interest to keep the gold and silver ornaments of "Maa Durga" in their locker and the property has been purchased as if the complainant/opposite party no.2 has purchased the same by forging his signature. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the material in record, it is pertinent to mention here that the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code are as follows:-
(i) the accused removed any movable property, 6 Cr. M.P. No.3008 of 2023 ( 2025:JHHC:26351 )
(ii) the accused removed the property out of the possession of another person without his consent,
(iii) he did so with a dishonest intention as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K. N. Mehra vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1957 SC 369.
11. Now, coming to the facts of the case, it is not the case of the complainant that the ornaments which have been allegedly taken away by the petitioners and others, were the property of the complainant. In the complaint itself, it has been categorically mentioned that they are the properties of the Goddess Durga-the deity Goddess's jewelry. The undisputed fact remains that besides the temple of Goddess Durga, there is also a place where a community Durga Puja takes place annually and a land has been purchased therefor and Annexure-6 of this Cr.M.P. is the land documents, which bears the name of altogether five persons in their capacity as sebaits of 'Durga Mata Thakurani' including the petitioners and the complainant. In the counter-affidavit filed by the complainant- opposite party No.2, the complainant- opposite party No.2 has neither questioned nor challenged the veracity of the same. The same is copy of a public document and is a document of unimpeachable character. After the annual Durga Puja, as the idol of the Goddess Durga is required to be immersed, then the question arises where the gold and silver jewelry of the Goddess are to be kept and it is evident from the undisputed document filed along with the supplementary affidavit that after the annual Durga Puja, the ornaments of the Goddess is kept in a locker 7 Cr. M.P. No.3008 of 2023 ( 2025:JHHC:26351 ) maintained in the name of the petitioner no.2 and during the time of the annual Durga Puja, the jewelries are put on the idol of the Goddess and after conclusion of the annual Durga Puja, the same is taken off and are kept in a locker in the presence of the Police personnel of Ranishwar Police Station.
12. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegation made in the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the enquiry witnesses are considered to be true in their entirety, still there being absolutely no allegation that the petitioners had any dishonest intention in taking the jewelry; in the absence of this essential ingredient of dishonest intention to constitute the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, this court is of the considered opinion that even if the entire allegation is considered to be true, still the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners.
13. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceeding of the PCR Case No.1105 of 2022 including the order taking cognizance dated 30.09.2022 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dumka has taken cognizance against the petitioners, will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, this is a fit case where the entire PCR Case No.1105 of 2022 including the order taking cognizance dated 30.09.2022 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, 8 Cr. M.P. No.3008 of 2023 ( 2025:JHHC:26351 ) Dumka has taken cognizance against the petitioners, as prayed for by the petitioners, be quashed and set aside.
14. Accordingly, the entire PCR Case No.1105 of 2022 including the order taking cognizance dated 30.09.2022 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dumka has taken cognizance against the petitioners, as prayed for by the petitioners, is quashed and set aside.
15. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 28th of August, 2025 AFR/ Abhiraj 9 Cr. M.P. No.3008 of 2023