Keka Bakshi vs State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 889 Jhar

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                Cr. M.P. No. 2724 of 2016
       Keka Bakshi...............                                   Petitioner(s)
                              Versus
       1. State of Jharkhand
       2. Vinod Kumar Singh ...........                               Opp. Party(s)
                              ......

       Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ananda                Sen
                Through:-Video Conferencing
                                    ......
       For the Petitioner                  : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate
       For the State                       : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.
                                    ......

6/23.02.2021    The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding,

which has been held through video conferencing today at 11.00 A.M. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of O.P. No. 2 though their names are appearing in the daily cause list.

The petitioner, in this application, has prayed to quash the First Information Report being Adityapur P.S. Case No. 297 of 2015 (G.R. No. 847/2015), registered for committing an offence punishable under Sections 420, 403, 406, 467, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the FIR no offence is made out so far as this petitioner is concerned. He submits that in the entire complaint, which is the subject matter of FIR, there is no whisper about this petitioner. He submits that no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner. Thus, arraying this petitioner as an accused is nothing but an abuse of the process of court and is in malafide intension.

Learned A.P.P. submits that though there some allegations in the FIR, but there is no allegation against this petitioner.

The law so far as it relates to quashing of an FIR has already been set at rest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Haryana & Others -versus- Bhajan Lal & Others, (1992) Suppl. (1) SCC 335" in Para- 102 has laid down the criteria which are necessary for quashing an FIR. The aforesaid judgment has consistently been followed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and by other High Courts. From the aforesaid judgment, I find that if no offence, as alleged, is made out, the FIR can be quashed.

Considering the aforesaid judgment, when I go through the FIR, I find that this petitioner is accused no. 2 and is a married daughter of accused no. 1. Accused No. 1 happens to be the widow of deceased Bijay

Bihari Das and mother of one Biraj Das. In the entire complaint, which is the subject matter of FIR, there is allegation that Bijay Bihari Das and his deceased son Biraj Das alongwith accused no. 1 (not the petitioner) contacted the complainant and expressed their intention to sell their house. The agreement was entered between them and as per the FIR the money amounting to Rs. 24,20,000/-, in 13 installments, was handed over to several persons namely, Biraj Das, Smt. Abha Das, Bijay Bihari Das and Soma Das. Further, there is allegation that those persons, with a dishonest intention, had not sold the property, even after receiving money.

If the aforesaid fact, which has been mentioned in the complaint, is taken on its face value, it is an admitted case of the complainant that there was no privity of contract between this petitioner and the complainant. Not even single penny of money was handed over to this petitioner. There is no overt act by this petitioner. There is no whisper of the name of this petitioner in the entire complaint save and except in first paragraph wherein only parentage of the petitioner is given. These facts are gathered from the FIR only.

Thus, after going through the FIR on its face value, I find that there is no material to proceed against this petitioner and the proceeding against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of the process of court. Since no offence is made out against this petitioner from the complaint petition itself, I am inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. The First Information Report being Adityapur P.S. Case No. 297 of 2015 (G.R. No. 847/2015), so far as this petitioner is concerned, is hereby quashed and set aside.

This criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed.

(Ananda Sen, J) Mukund/-cp.3