Jharkhand High Court
Laxmi Narayan Lal & Ors. vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr. on 2 March, 2015
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 219 of 2004
-----------
1. Laxmi Narayan Lal, Son of late Jagdish Prasad.
2. Muklesh Kumar, Son of Laxmi Narayan Lal.
3. Anil Kumar, Son of Laxmi Narayan Lal.
4. Sunil Kumar, Son of Laxmi Narayan Lal.
5. Abinash Kumar @ Chanchal, Son of Laxmi Narayan Lal.
6. Yugal Kishore Prasad, Son of late Rajendra Prasad.
7. Bineshwar Prasad, Son of late Rajendra Prasad.
8. Dinesh Prasad, Son of late Rajendra Prasad.
9. Hari Prasad Barnwal @ Harihar Prasad, Son of late Moujilal
Burnwal.
All residents of Jitpur (Purana Bazar), Gomoh, P.S. Hariharpur
( Topchanchi) District-Dhanbad.
.....Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Govind Mahato, Son of Sri Hiraman Mahato, Resident of village-
Jitpur, P.S. Hariharpur, (Topchanchi) District-Dhanbad.
....Opposite Parties
-----
Coram: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. P.S. Dayal, Advocate
For the State : APP
For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Advocate
-----
06/2-03-2015Heard Mr. P.S. Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2.
In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.P. Case No. 1010 of 2002 including the order dated 10.04.2003, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to take cognizance for the offence punishable under sections 148, 149, 323, 427, 379, 448, 452, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
It appears that a complaint case was lodged by the complainant-opposite party no. 2 wherein it has been stated that the complainant is working as a peon in D.R. High School, Jitpur, Gomoh and within mouza Jitpur, he and his other co-sharers have several acres of land and house etc. left by their common ancestor. It has been stated therein that one of the piece of land measuring an area of about 80 decimals is surrounded with brick built boundary wall on the part of plot nos. 1174, 1175 and 1176 under khata no. 106. It has been alleged in the complaint petition that on 10.07.2002, all the accused persons along with some other unknown persons with common intention suddenly came and gathered near the said joint -2- family garden and house and began to abuse the complainant. On protest, he was assaulted by the accused persons with fists and slaps and three accused persons with guns in their hands pointed the guns towards the complainant. It has also been alleged that four sons of Laxmi Narayan caught and overpowered the complainant and picked up Rs.300/- from his pocket and Sunil Kumar snatched away the old wrist watch of the complainant. It has been alleged that at the call and direction of accused Dinesh Prasad, the accused at serial nos. 9 to 13 of the complaint petition caught the aunt of the complainant and they not only assaulted but also snatched away her ear rings and chain worth about Rs.14000-15000/-. It has been stated that when the matter was reported to the local police, the police did not register any case and when uncle of the complainant-Baneshwar Mahto was arrested on false complaint lodged by one of the accused persons, the present case has been instituted.
After conducting an inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. by examining the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as his witnesses, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under sections 148, 149, 323, 427, 379, 448, 452, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that admittedly the date of occurrence, as has been mentioned in the complaint petition, is 10.07.2002, whereas the complaint case has been lodged on 7.6.2002 and no plausible explanation has been given by the complainant in instituting the complaint case after so much delay. He has further submitted that in fact the petitioners are lawful owners of the lands in question and on 10.07.2002, an incident had indeed taken place, in which the complainant party was the aggressors and since injuries were suffered on account of such assault upon the petitioners, a case was instituted being Topchanchi (Hariharpur) P.S. Case No. 76 of 2002 against the complainant of the present case as well as other accused persons. It has been submitted that on the FIR by the petitioners side, investigation was done and having found the case to be true, charge sheet was submitted against all the accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submits that the petitioners have been implicated in the present case on account of a land dispute and as a counter blast to Topchanchi (Hariharpur) P.S. Case No. 76 of 2002. Learned counsel -3- for the petitioners has submitted that a proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated and from the police report, it appears that the first party i.e. the complainant party had sold the said piece of disputed portion of land, which has been purchased by the second party (petitioners) and in spite of the said fact, the first party was forcibly trying to repossess the land by dispossessing the petitioners. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that several accused persons i.e. accused nos. 9 to 13 had moved this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 1473 of 2003 and the entire criminal proceedings, as against them, were quashed vide order dated 25.03.2004.
Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2, on the other hand, has submitted that there are specific allegations against the present petitioners as would be evident from bare perusal of paragraphs 5 and 6 of the complaint petition. It has been submitted that the case of accused nos. 9 to 13 cannot be equated with that of the petitioners in view of the fact there were general and omnibus allegations levelled against those accused persons, which were taken into consideration by this Court while quashing the entire criminal proceeding against them. It has also been submitted that reasonable explanation has been given by the complainant in paragraph 10 of the complaint petition, which has been substantiated by the statement recorded under solemn affirmation. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2, therefore, submits that in view of specific allegations having been levelled against the petitioners, they are liable to face the trial in the present case and the present case is fit to be dismissed.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, I find that a complaint case was lodged on 7.6.2002. For the same occurrence, an FIR being Topchanchi (Hariharpur) P.S. Case No. 76 of 2002 was also instituted from the petitioners side on 10.07.2002 and investigation by the police culminated in filing of the chargesheet against the accused persons. The complainant-opposite party no. 2 kept silent for more than three weeks and only on 7.6.2002, a complaint case was lodged. Admittedly, there is a land dispute between the parties, which is further evident from the report of police in a proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C., in which it has been mentioned that the second -4- party i.e. the petitioners had purchased the disputed plot and the first party was trying to dispossess them which ultimately resulted in an incident on 10.07.2002. An explanation has been sought to be projected by the complainant-opposite party no. 2 in paragraphs 10, 11 & 13 of the complaint petition that only upon the arrest of the uncle of the complainant on the complaint of accused persons could the complainant come to know that the police did not register any case against the accused persons. The surrounding facts including the FIR instituted by the petitioners party as well as the police report submitted under Section 144 Cr.P.C. substantiates the argument that there is a land dispute between both the sides and filing of the complaint case against all the family members of the petitioners and that too after a considerable delay from the date of the alleged incident only establishes the fact that the petitioners have been maliciously prosecuted in the present case. Moreover, in the case of accused nos. 9 to 13, this Court had quashed the entire criminal proceedings vide order dated 25.03.2004 and in view of the fact that all family members of the petitioners have been sought to be implicated in the present case admittedly due to a land dispute between the parties, the proceedings as against the petitioners cannot be allowed to be continued.
In view of what has been discussed above, continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners will be an abuse of the process of court. This application is, accordingly, allowed. The entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.P. Case No. 1010 of 2002 including the order dated 10.04.2003, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to take cognizance for the offence punishable under sections 148, 149, 323, 427, 379, 448, 452, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioners, is hereby quashed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J) Rakesh/