Jharkhand High Court
Kadir Mian vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
Criminal Revision No. 358 of 2015
1. Kadir Mian, s/o late Amir Mian
2. Md. Leyakat Ansari @ Leyakat Mian
3. Reyasat Ansari.
Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are sons of Kadir Main.
All residents of village Karkat, PO, PS & District-Latehar.
... Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioners : Mr. Vibhor Mayank, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nikki Sinha, APP
---------
Order No. 07/Dated: 12th August 2022
Kadir Mian, Leyakat Ansari and Reyasat Ansari were
prosecuted along with Seraj Mian under section 188 of the Indian
Penal Code (in short, IPC).
2. In C.G. No. 04 of 2007 (T.R No. 80 of 2011), Seraj Mian
was acquitted on the ground of insufficient evidence, however,
other three accused were convicted and sentenced to RI for one
month under section 188 IPC.
3. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Latehar cancelled the
bail-bonds furnished by the petitioners in C.G No. 04 of 2007 (T.R
No. 80 of 2011) and this was upheld by the appellate Court. I.A
No. 2262 of 2015 filed by the petitioners seeking exemption from
surrendering was allowed by this Court vide order dated 23 rd April
2015.
4. Briefly stated, Misc. Case No. 196 of 2007 was
instituted under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in
short, Cr.P.C) on a petition filed by Chamni Bibi and notices were
issued to Kadir Mian, Leyakat Ansari, Reyasat Ansari and Seraj
Mian and the aforesaid opposite parties were restrained from going
over the disputed land. Chamni Bibi filed a petition alleging
disobedience of the order dated 22 nd July 2007 in which a report
was obtained by the Court. Thereafter on the complaint of the Sub
2 Criminal Revision No. 358 of 2015
Divisional Officer, Latehar, C.G No. 04 of 2007 (T.R No. 80 of 2011)
was drawn by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar and
cognizance was taken accordingly.
5. During the trial before the Sub Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Chamni Bibi deposed in the Court that violating the
order dated 22nd July 2007 the accused persons ploughed the field.
The Sub Divisional Officer deposed in the Court that a report
received in connection to the complaint by Chamni Bibi clearly
suggested that the accused persons ploughed the field.
6. Both Courts have held that the accused violated the
order dated 22nd July 2007 and, therefore, were liable to be
convicted and sentenced under section 188 IPC.
7. Mr. Vibhor Mayank, the learned counsel for the
petitioners has raised several arguments including the one
touching upon essential ingredients for constituting the offence
under section 188 IPC.
8. Submission raised by Mr. Vibhor Mayank, the learned
counsel for the petitioners is that in the complaint submitted by
Chamni Bibi on 26th July 2007 there is no allegation of
obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed.
9. Admittedly on the date and time of the occurrence
Chamni Bibi was not present in the field when the accused persons
are said to have ploughed the field and while so the necessary
ingredients for constituting the offence under section 188 IPC, that
the accused caused obstruction, annoyance or injury to her, are
not present.
10. Attention of this Court has been drawn to a judgment
rendered in "Mathuri v. State of Punjab" (1964) 5 SCR 916 wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"18. ............ The correct position in law may, in our opinion,
be stated thus: In order to establish that the entry on the
property was with the intent to annoy, intimidate or insult, it
is necessary for the Court to be satisfied that causing such
annoyance, intimidation or insult was the aim of the entry;
that it is not sufficient for that purpose to show merely that
the natural consequence of the entry was likely to be
annoyance, intimidation or insult, and that this likely
consequence was known to the person entering; that in
deciding whether the aim of the entry was the causing of
3 Criminal Revision No. 358 of 2015
such annoyance, intimidation or insult, the Court has to
consider all the relevant circumstances including the
presence of knowledge that its natural consequences would
be such annoyance, intimidation or insult and including also
the probability or something else than the causing of such
intimidation, insult or annoyance, being the dominant
intention which prompted the entry."
11. It is not established that the petitioners had knowledge
that their acts would have caused annoyance to the complainant,
or that they actually intended to cause annoyance, and the fact
also remains that at the time of the occurrence the complainant
was not present in the field which the petitioners have ploughed.
Moreover it is not conclusively established during the trial that the
order dated 22nd July 2007 was within the knowledge of the
petitioners and for that reason also their prosecution under section
188 IPC must be held bad in law.
12. Criminal Revision No. 358 of 2015 is allowed.
13. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the Court
concerned through FAX.
14. Let the lower Court records be sent to the Court
concerned, forthwith.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
Amit/
