Jharkhand High Court
Sathuri Gopal Rao vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 September, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3906 of 2018
Sathuri Gopal Rao, aged about 75 years, s/o late Sathuri Ram Murty,
r/o Near "Ram Niwas", Road No.15, Mango, P.O.-Azadnagar, P.S.-
Mango, Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sathuri Surya Prakash, aged about 59 years, s/o late Atchutha Rao,
r/o B-4, Tayo Colony, Gamharia, Dist.-Saraikela Kharsawan,
Jharkhand, Permanent r/o-Ram Niwas, Road No.15, Jawahar
Nagar, P.O.+P.S.-Mango (T), Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum
.... Opp. Parties
With
Cr.M.P. No. 2763 of 2018
Sathuri Chiranjeev Rao @ Sathuri Chiranjeevi Rao, aged about 49
years, s/o late Sambasiv Rao, r/o "Ram Niwas", Road No.15, Mango,
P.O.-Azadnagar, P.S.-Mango, Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sathuri Surya Prakash, aged about 59 years, s/o late Atchutha Rao,
r/o B-4, Tayo Colony, Gamharia, P.O. & P.S.-Seraikela, Kharsawan,
Dist.-Saraikela Kharsawan, Jharkhand, Permanent r/o-Ram Niwas,
Road No.15, Jawahar Nagar, P.O.+P.S.-Mango (T), Jamshedpur,
Dist.-East Singhbhum
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashish Jha, Advocate : Mr. Mayank M. Sinha, Advocate Cr.M.P. No.3906 of 2018 with Cr.M.P. No.2763 of 2018 1 For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, Addl. P.P. : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, Addl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate : Ms. Supriya Dayal, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate .....
By the Court:-
I.A. No.38 of 2021 (in Cr.M.P. No. 3906 of 2018)
1. Heard the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No. 3906 of 2018 submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer for substitution of the certified copy of the FIR of Mango P.S. Case No.251 of 2017 which has been marked as Annexure 1 to the Cr.M.P. No. 3906 of 2018 with the fresh certified copy of the Mango P.S. Case which has been marked annexure-B of the instant interlocutory application and for amendment of Cr.M.P. No. 3906 of 2018 at paragraph no.10 in page no.7 by deleting the averments made in the said paragraph, as petitioner is not relying upon the same. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No. 3906 of 2018 that as the certified copy of the FIR which has been marked as Annexure-1 to the Cr.M.P. No. 3906 of 2018 was incomplete hence, the same requires to be substituted by Annexure-
B of the instant interlocutory application which is the complaint lodged.
3. Considering the aforesaid facts, the prayer is allowed.
4. This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Cr.M.P. No.3906 of 2018 with Cr.M.P. No.2763 of 2018 2 I.A. No.2 of 2021 (in Cr.M.P. No. 2763 of 2018)
1. Heard the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No. 2763 of 2018 submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer for substitution of the certified copy of the FIR of Mango P.S. Case No.251 of 2017 which has been marked as Annexure 1 to the Cr.M.P. No. 2763 of 2018 with the fresh certified copy of the Mango P.S. Case which has been marked annexure-B of the instant interlocutory application and for amendment of Cr.M.P. No. 2763 of 2018 at paragraph no.9 in page no.7 by deleting the averments made in the said paragraph, as petitioner is not relying upon the same. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No. 2763 of 2018 that as the certified copy of the FIR which has been marked as Annexure-1 to the Cr.M.P. No. 2763 of 2018 was incomplete hence, the same requires to be substituted by Annexure- B of the instant interlocutory application which is the complaint lodged.
3. Considering the aforesaid facts, the prayer is allowed.
4. This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Cr.M.P. No. 3906 of 2018 with Cr.M.P. No. 2763 of 2018
1. Heard the parties.
2. Both the criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C with the common prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in Cr.M.P. No.3906 of 2018 with Cr.M.P. No.2763 of 2018 3 connection with Mango P.S. Case No. 251 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 2227 of 2017, order taking cognizance dated 29.06.2018 whereby and where under after submission of charge sheet against the petitioners the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 385, 420, 504, 506 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, order dated 20.07.2017 passed in C/1 Case No. 2171 of 2017 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur has referred the case for institution of the FIR and lastly for quashing the order dated 12.12.2018 whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur has framed charges against the petitioners under Sections 323, 385, 420, 504, 506 and 120B of Indian Penal Code. Hence, both these criminal miscellaneous petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 12.06.2017 the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No. 2763 of 2018 namely Sathuri Chiranjeev Rao called the complainant to Ram Nivas, which used to be the property of a partnership firm namely Sathuri Engineer and demanded extortion of Rs.10,00,000/- from the complainant and when the complainant protested, they assaulted the complainant with fists blows and caused hurt to him and also tried to snatch away the cheque book from the complainant. There is also allegation against the petitioners of preparing forged documents by, in criminal conspiracy with each other, signing falsely and trying to register an agreement for sale by impersonation and also cheated and by way of cheating changed the name of the board of Ram Nivas from Sathuri Engineer to Bharat Engineering. There is also allegation against the Cr.M.P. No.3906 of 2018 with Cr.M.P. No.2763 of 2018 4 petitioners of criminal intimidation of the complainant and internationally insulting him to provoke commission of offence.
4. The complainant filed Complaint Case No. 2171 of 2017 which was referred to police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. basing upon which Mango P.S. Case No. 251 of 2017 was registered and police took up investigation of the case.
5. After completion of investigation, police found the allegations against the petitioners to be true and submitted charge sheet against the petitioners for having committed the said offences and on the basis of the same, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance and subsequently charges for the said offences have been framed against the petitioners.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainant has suppressed the material fact that the complainant filed the Title Partition Suit No. 83 of 2006 in which the petitioners of these criminal miscellaneous petitions were defendants; which was filed with a prayer for partition of the joint family property and the suit was dismissed on 29.06.2013. Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Usha Chakraborty & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that non-disclosure of the said fact of filing the title suit and its dismissal before filing the complaint goes to show that as the complainant- informant has availed the civil remedy and the dispute between the parties is a civil nature hence, it is submitted that on this score alone, the prayer made by the petitioners in the criminal miscellaneous petitions be quashed.
Cr.M.P. No.3906 of 2018
with Cr.M.P. No.2763 of 2018 5
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 and submits that in this case before filing the complaint, the complainant having not complied with the provisions of Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C. hence, the reference of complaint to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is bad in law and on this score also, the prayer made by the petitioners in the criminal miscellaneous petitions be quashed.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand opposes the prayer as made by the petitioners in the criminal miscellaneous petitions and submits that this is not a case of civil dispute rather the petitioners have committed extortion, caused hurt, criminally intimidated the complainant, intentionally insulted him, in criminal conspiracy with each other and besides that having committed offence of cheating; so the ratio of Usha Chakraborty & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case, more so because unlike the case of Usha Chakraborty & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. (supra) where only FIR was registered, but in this case the allegation against the petitioners was found to be true after investigation of the case by the police and charge sheet has been submitted, cognizance has been taken and even charge has been framed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur upon considering the materials available in the record including the case diary by the police. So far as the non-compliance of Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is submitted that keeping in view the fact Cr.M.P. No.3906 of 2018 with Cr.M.P. No.2763 of 2018 6 of the case where the allegation made against the petitioners was considered to be true in the investigation by the police, at this belated stage the non-compliance of Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C. cannot be taken into consideration for quashing the entire criminal proceeding. Hence, it is submitted that these criminal miscellaneous petitions being without any merit be dismissed.
9. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that so far as the judgment of Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (supra) is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s SAS Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Telangana & Another in Criminal Appeal No.2574 of 2024 dated 14.05.2024 passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2123 of 2024 paragraph-9 of which reads as under:-
"9. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has placed reliance of the decision of this Court in "Priyanka Srivastava And Another Versus State of Uttar Pradesh And Others"
(2015) 6 SCC 287 to submit that the complaint filed by the appellant - complainant was not supported by an affidavit. In our opinion, the said observation has been made in the said case by way of abundant caution to see that frivolous complaints are avoided." (Emphasis supplied) has opined that the observations made in the case of Priyanka Srivastava & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (supra) has been made in the said case by way of abundant caution to see that frivolous complaints are avoided.
10. Now coming to the facts of the case, the complaint is supported by an affidavit. The complainant in paragraph no.16 of the complaint has categorically stated that the complainant went to Mango police station but the Officer-in-Charge was not present and on meeting the Cr.M.P. No.3906 of 2018 with Cr.M.P. No.2763 of 2018 7 munshi, the munshi suggested to file a case in the court of law. So in the considered opinion of this Court, this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding is to be quashed only on the ground of non-compliance of Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C. more so, at the belated stage when police after investigation of the case found the allegation against the petitioners to be true and submitted charge sheet and consequent upon that cognizance of the offences has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur and charge has already been framed against them.
11. So far as the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Usha Chakraborty & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. (supra) is concerned, that was a case where only FIR was lodged but here not only the FIR has been lodged but the allegation inter alia of extortion, causing hurt, criminally intimidating the complainant, intentionally insulting him and cheating, were all found to be true by the police upon investigation of the case and charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioners and charge has already been framed. So in the considered opinion of this Court, this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding is to be quashed only because a partition suit filed by the complainant earlier in which the petitioners were the defendants has been dismissed but the same has not been mentioned in this complaint.
12. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594, the relevant portion of which reads as under:-
Cr.M.P. No.3906 of 2018
with Cr.M.P. No.2763 of 2018 8 " Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering. (Emphasis supplied) that no mini trial can be conducted by the high court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for deciding the genuineness of the allegation made.
13. It is also a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781 that the genuine prosecution cannot be stifled in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
14. In view of the discussions made above as there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of commission of offences not only of civil nature but also extortion, causing hurt, criminal intimidation, causing intentional insult to the complainant, cheating and the same were found to be true by the police during the investigation of the case and cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur and charges have been framed for the said offences, this is not a fit case where the prayers made by the petitioners in these criminal miscellaneous petitions as already indicated above is to be allowed.
15. Accordingly, these criminal miscellaneous petitions being without any merit is dismissed.
Cr.M.P. No.3906 of 2018
with Cr.M.P. No.2763 of 2018 9
16. Consequently, the interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of being infructuous.
17. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated.
18. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 24th September, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
Cr.M.P. No.3906 of 2018
with Cr.M.P. No.2763 of 2018 10