The Jharkhand High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against a Junior Engineer accused of bribery and snatching of chain and held that the petitioner had caught theft of the respondent and the present case was then filed against him which appeared to be malicious and was filed as a counterblast of earlier FIR in which the respondent was facing trial.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, a Junior Engineer along with along people went to the shop of the respondent and demanded the due electricity bill and the after the respondent asked for some time the petitioner allegedly abused him and threatened him. It was further alleged that the petitioner snatched the gold chain of the brother of the respondent. The present petition was filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings pending in the trial court.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the petitioner had lodged a case against the respondent for illegally using electricity and just after that the respondent filed the case alleging that the petitioner had snatched the chain of the brother of the respondent and the present case has been filed maliciously and the entire proceedings should thus be quashed.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that there were allegations of bribe against the petitioner and thus the complaint had been filed. It was further argued that the court after applying its judicial mind had taken cognizance against the petitioner and the court should thus not interfere under Section 482 CrPC.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that it was prima facie incumbent upon the respondent to take steps for the transfer of the said electricity connection in his favour, but he has not done so and he was using the electricity. It was further stated that the petitioner had caught theft of the respondent and the present case was then filed against him which appeared to be malicious and was filed as a counterblast of earlier FIR in which the respondent was facing trial.
The court referred to the judgment in Priyanka Srivastava and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others to state that to call a person by way of issuing summons, on examination of few witnesses is a serious thing.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and quashed the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
Case Title: Birendra Oraon vs. The State of Jharkhand and anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Case No.: Cr.M.P. No. 1725 of 2017
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Rakesh Kumar and Mr. V.S Sahay
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
