Jharkhand High Court
Abid Ali vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 12 of 2021
Abid Ali ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Ali-Al-Arafat ..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani. Advocate
For the State : A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate.
------
04/ 13.12.2021 Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for
quashing of the entire criminal prosecution including the order dated
07.12.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, in
Complaint Case No. 6919 of 2020.
3. The complaint was filed stating therein that the O.P. No. 2
claims himself to be the Principal of Amanat Ali Inter College which is
Government aided Minority College run by the Committee constituted by
Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi. It has been alleged that previously
the said College was run by the Committee constituted by Al Momin
Social and Educational Welfare Society. Presently, the committee has been
constituted by the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi. Since 2005 up to
27.07.2020, the petitioner was the Secretary of the Managing Committee
and he alleged to have incurred Rs. 38,00,000/- for his own purpose, but
he failed to refund the said amount. Few days ago, the college
Administration asked the petitioner to refund the amount, but he refused to
do so as a result whereof during COVID-19 period, the financial condition
of the College became worst. It has also been alleged that the petitioner
prepared forged documents for his own benefits. He tried to create
documents to remove the O.P. No. 2 from his post. On 28.07.2020, the
Jharkhand Academic Council suspended the previous committee and
directed the O.P. No. 2 to continue as Principal. In the meeting held on
13.10.2020, the Managing Committee decided to take steps against the
petitioner.
It has also been alleged that while holding the post of
Secretary of the Managing Committee, the petitioner misused the
cheque and cash amount of the college to the extent of Rs.
39,00,000/- with an assurance to refund the said amount, but he
failed to do so.
4. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that on receiving the complaint, the learned Magistrate has passed
the order dated 07.12.2020, by which, the said complaint was sent to the
concerned police station for registration and investigation, in view of
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. He submits that this is not in consonance with the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mrs.
Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. Versus State of U.P. & Ors., reported in
(2015) 0 Supreme (SC) 265 [equivalent to (2015) 6 SCC 287]. Para-20
thereof is quoted hereinbelow:-
"20. In Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi, this Court ruled
thus:
"18. ...11. The clear position therefore is that any
Judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of the offence,
can order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. If
he does so, he is not to examine the complainant on oath
because he was not taking cognizance of any offence therein.
For the purpose of enabling the police to start investigation
it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an
FIR. There is nothing illegal in doing so. After all
registration of an FIR involves only the process of entering
the substance of the information relating to the commission
of the cognizable offence in a book kept by the officer in
charge of the police station as indicated in Section 154 of the
Code. Even if a Magistrate does not say in so many words
while directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the
Code that an FIR should be registered, it is the duty of the
officer in charge of the police station to register the FIR
regarding the cognizable offence disclosed by the
complainant because that police officer could take further
steps contemplated in Chapter XII of the Code only
thereafter."
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in
view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Priyanka Srivastava (Supra), the Magistrate is required to pass the well
reasoned order.
6. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the O.P.
No. 2 submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order.
7. In view of the above fact and also in view of the submissions
of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has perused the order
dated 07.12.2020, whereby the complaint was referred to the concerned
police station by the learned Magistrate for registration of FIR and
investigation, but no reason has been disclosed in the said order. The
magistrate is required to record the reasons in the order, in view of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Priyanka Srivastava (Supra).
8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.12.2020 passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, in Complaint Case No.
6919 of 2020, is hereby, quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Court
of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi to pass a fresh order in the
light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Priyanka Srivastava (Supra).
9. This criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of in the
above terms.
10. The interim order, granted earlier stands vacated.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
