Jharkhand High Court

Krishna Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 April, 2022

                                     1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     Cr.M.P. No. 241 of 2017

        1.Krishna Kumar Singh
        2. Shuvendra Kumar Sahu @ Sharvendu Saha @ Shorvendu Sahu @
        Sharmendra Kumar Sahu
        3. Ramavtar Sahu
        4. Madan Mohan Mishra
        5. Om Prakash Sinha
        6. Mukesh Nandan
        7. Bajrang Lal Chiraniya
        8. Onkar Prasad Sinha
        9. Parmanand Mahto
        10.Diwakar Ghosh
        11. Gopesh Kumar Ghosh @ Gopesh Ghosh
        12.Ramesh Mani Pathak
        13. Rajesh Prasad @ Rajesh Kumar Gupta
        14. Ramdhyan Mishra
        15. Shree Prakash Chandra @ Prakash Chandra
        16. Kishore Prasad
        17. Shashi Kant Dwivedi @ Shashi Kant Dwivedi
                                                   .... ...Petitioners
                                  Versus

         1. The State of Jharkhand

         2. Surendera Kumar Rai

                                                   ..... ...Opp. Parties
                         --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Lal Vikram Nath Shahdeo, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. P.P.

..........

04/ Dated:-05.04.2022 By order dated 22.06.2017 notice has been issued upon

the O.P. No. 2. Notice has been validly served upon the O.P. No. 2.

Name of the counsel for the O.P. No. 2 is appearing.

2. On repeated calls, nobody appeared on behalf of O.P.

No. 2. The matter is of the year, 2017. Accordingly, this matter is

being heard on merit.

3. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for

the petitioners assisted by Mr. Lal Vikram Nath Shahdeo, learned

counsel and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the State.

4. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire

criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance date

09.12.2016 passed by the learned C.J.M., Chaibasa in connection

with G.R. Case No. 538 of 2015, pending in the Court of learned

C.J.M., Chaibasa.

5. The O.P. No. 2 has filed complaint case stating therein

that he is Principal of Padmawati Jain Shishu Vidya Mandir,

Chaibasa. Accused No. 20, Vidya Vikas Samity, Ranchi is a society

for the purpose of training of the recruited teacher on payment

basis and other accused nos. 1 to 19 are directly and indirectly

associated with accused no. 20. It is further alleged that on

08.08.2015 at about 3 P.M. the accused persons named in serial

nos. 1 to 19 all associate of accused no. 20 besides other accused

persons entered into the official chamber of the complainant

situated at Premises of Padmawati Jain Sarswati Shishu Vidya

Mandir, Chaibasa by breaking all security channel and on the point

of pistol, they took blank signature over more than 100 blank pages

as well as signature over few stamp papers and blank cheques and

snatched cash amount of Rs. 15,000/- from the pocket of the

complainant and Rs. 1 lakh from the chamber's lock. The

complainant somehow saved his life. The accused persons

threatened the complainant for dire consequence. It is further

alleged that on 08.08.2015 all the accused persons by breaking lock

of main gate of school building, school auditorium/hall, 35 rooms,

science laboratory, library and computer room etc captured the

entire school buildings with all infrastructure, furnitures, official

records, available cash in locker, cheque books, books of accounts,

all worth of Rs. 2,71,30,364/- as per audited assets as on

31.03.2014 and Rs. 4,00,00,000/- as per audited assets as on

31.3.2015. It is further alleged that the accused no. 1 to 19 also

assaulted Manju Devi at School premises. It is further alleged that

the accused nos. 1 to 19 without consent and necessary permission

of the complainant downloaded, copies and extracts of schools

installed computer, computer system, computer network including

information or data. It is further alleged that the accused no. 20

and its associates accused nos. 1 to 19 had shown forged

documents with regard to giving affiliation to school and have

cheated so many schools in Jharkhand by receiving Rs. 500/- per

child. It is further alleged that on 23.07.2015 at about 2. P.M. the

accused no. 4 called the complainant at Khirwal Dharmshala,

Chaibasa and threatened the compliant. On 09.08.2015 at about 10

A.M. the accused no. 1 to 19 illegally disconnected the water

supply and electric connections of the residential quarter of the

employed teachers and other staff and misbehaved with female

members of the said quarter. It is further alleged that earlier the

witness no. 2 Akhileshwar Sinha has filed one application dated

22.06.2015 under section 39 of Code of Criminal Procedure against

the accused nos. 20 and 17 and others. The complainant and so

many other persons available at place of occurrence got injured by

the acts of the accused persons. On the basis of these allegations,

the complaint has been filed.

6. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the

petitioners submits that all the petitioners are governing body of

the school namely, Sarswati Shishu Vidya Mandir, Chaibasa. He

further submits that since the land in question was donated by

Padmawati Jain, lateron the name of the school has been changed

as Padmawati Jain Shishu Vidya Mandir, Chaibasa. He further

submits that pursuant to complaint filed by the complainant the

same was sent to the concerned police station under section 156(3)

Cr.P.C. by the learned court for institution of F.I.R. and investigation

and after investigation police has submitted chargesheet showing

the case civil in nature and no criminality has been involved so far

as petitioners are concerned and on the protest petition filed by the

O.P. No. 2, learned court has taken cognizance by order dated

09.12.2016 against the petitioners who are members of governing

body as well as society which runs Sarswati Vidya Mandir as O.P.

No. 2 was principal of Padmawati Jain Shishu Vidya Mandir,

Chaibasa whose services however was terminated by the Managing

Committee on account of defalcation which had taken place. He

further submits that after defalcation came into light, the

complainant had caused disappearance of important documents

which led to institution of F.I.R against O.P. No.2 in which he is said

to be absconding. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further

submits that after O.P. No. 2 was given show cause, the service of

the O.P. No. 2 was terminated by a reasoned order dated

03.06.2016 which was challenged before the Jharkhand Education

Tribunal in which the O.P. No. 2 had also lost. By referring complaint

petition, learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submits

that no ingredient of criminality is disclosed in the entire complaint

petition. He further submits that the learned Magistrate differing

with the Final Form submitted by the police has taken cognizance of

the offence punishable under sections 452, 454, 354(B), 387, 406,

420, 467, 468, 120B/34 of the I.P.C. and summoned the accused

persons to face trial. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners

further submits that initiation of said complaint case was malicious

prosecution against all the members of the educational society on

account of O.P. No. 2 having been terminated from his service. He

further submits that in respect of another complaint filed by the

wife of O.P. No. 2 another accused has preferred Cr.M.P. No. 642 of

2016 that is still pending.

7. Despite appearance, on repeated calls, nobody

appeared on behalf of O.P. No. 2.

8. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2

fairly submits that in the chargesheet it has been disclosed that the

case is civil in nature which is also disclosed in para 14 of the

counter-affidavit filed by the State.

9. In view of the aforesaid facts and the arguments

advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as State,

the Court has gone through the materials on record. It is an

admitted fact that there is dispute with regard to school. O.P. No. 2

has also opened school and the name of the school has been given

the same name i.e. Padmawati Jain Vidya Mandir. It appears that

due to the name of the school dispute is there that is why police

submitted chargesheet showing the case civil in nature. The O.P.

No. 2 was dismissed from service by order dated 03.06.2016 and

against the said order, the O.P. No. 2 filed appeal before the

Tribunal in which he has also lost. Some of the petitioners are

members of governing body and are stationed at Patna and

Chaibasa. It is very strange how the petitioners came from Patna

and Chaibasa and entered into the office of the O.P. No.2 along with

members of the governing body and assaulted the O.P. No. 2. After

investigation, police has submitted chargesheet disclosing the case

civil in nature although, the learned Magistrate has taken

cognizance looking into the case diary and evidence of witnesses

examined by the O.P. No.2. What are the finding to that effect by

the learned Court is not disclosed in the cognizance order. It is well

settled that even any complaint is filed with an ulterior motive, the

High Court is required to exercise its jurisdiction under section 482

Cr.P.C. In this regard reference may be made to the case of

"Vineet Kumar & Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &

Another", reported in (2017) 13 SCC 369 wherein para 41 the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"41. Inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the categories as illustratively enumerated by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or harassment. When there are materials to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceeding under Category 7 as enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal3, which is to the following effect:

"102. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." Above Category 7 is clearly attracted in the facts of the present case. Although, the High Court has noted the judgment of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, but did not advert to the relevant facts of the present case, materials on which final report was submitted by the IO. We, thus, are fully satisfied that the present is a fit case where the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the criminal proceedings."

10. The direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in

the case of " State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal" reported in 1992

Supp. (1) SCC 335 particularly para 107(2) attracts the facts of

the present case. The court is satisfied to exercise its power under

section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding including

order taking cognizance date 09.12.2016 passed by the learned

C.J.M., Chaibasa in connection with G.R. Case No. 538 of 2015,

pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Chaibasa, is quashed.

11. So far as civil case in nature is concerned, the Court has

not given any finding whether the case is civil in nature or not, that

is opened to the O.P. No. 2, if so advised, he will file civil case.

12. This petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A., if