Jharkhand High Court
Rajesh Kumar Megotia @ Loddu ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 August, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1497 of 2016
----
1.Rajesh Kumar Megotia @ Loddu Megotia
2.Raj Kumar Megotia @ Mintu Megotia ..... Petitioners
-- Versus --
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Hazari Singh Prajapati
...... Opposite Parties
With
Cr.M.P. No. 2162 of 2016
----
1.Rajesh Kumar Megotia @ Loddu Megotia
2.Raj Kumar Megotia @ Mintu Megotia ..... Petitioners
-- Versus --
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Hazari Singh Prajapati
...... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioners :- Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State :- Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.
(in Cr.M.P. No. 1497/2016)
Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. P.P.
( In Cr.M.P. No. 2162/2016)
----
06/29.08.2022 On 05.05.2022 Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, learned counsel
informed the Court that the opposite party no. 2 has taken the file from
him two years back and he has no instruction to argue the case and it
was observed by the Court that O.P. No. 2 is required to make alternative
arrangement to pursue the case on his behalf and with a view to provide
one more opportunity to the O.P. No. 2, the matter was adjourned.
2. Today when the matters were taken up nobody responded
on behalf of O.P. No. 2 accordingly, these matters are being heard on
merit.
3. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mrs. Priya Shrestha and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel
for the State.
4. In both the petitions common facts are involved and
similar F.I.R. and cognizance have been challenged hence, both the
petitions are being heard together with the consent of the parties.
5. In Cr.M.P. No. 1497 of 2016 prayer has been made for quashing
of F.I.R. arising out of Jugsalai P.S. Case No. 320/2015, corresponding to
G.R. No. 3341 of 2015 as well as entire criminal proceeding and in Cr.M.P.
2162 of 2016 prayer has been made for quashing of entire criminal
proceeding including cognizance order dated 06.08.2016 passed in
Jugsalai P.S. Case No. 320/2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 3341 of 2015
pending in the court concerned.
6. The F.I.R. has been lodged alleging therein that for the last 20
years, the informant is engaged in work of soil dwelling and loading of
soil and since 2007 he was working with M/s Megotia Construction
Private Limited at the rate of Rupees 65 Cubic Meter and Railway Work at
the rate of 100 Cubic Meter. Since in the year, 2002 the informant
worked at Dalbhumgarh Canal No. 47 and 48 and Sunder Nagar Canal
No. 17 and 29 and Railway third line at Adityapur and the cost incurred
was to the tune of Rs. 1,39,51,194/-. It is alleged that in the year, 2012
for work of soil loading and levelling in the company of the petitioners
only the vehicles were used and the rest of the expenses such as oil and
tyre were borne by petitioners and when the informant demanded money
against the work done by him they had assured to pay it but for last one
year whenever the informant demanded his money they used to abuse
him and threatened him of dire consequences and also retained his Hywa
Trucks bearing Registration No. HR 67A 3639, HR 67A 3684 and JCB
bearing Registration No. HR 67 A 2651 for last 14-15 months and
whenever he demanded his money and vehicles they used to abuse him
and also threatened to kill. The installment of vehicles are not being
deposited in Bank. On the basis of these allegations, the instant case has
been lodged.
7. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the
petitioners submits the petitioners are working as contractors and they
have been awarded certain works by the Railways and subsequently, the
petitioners have taken work from the informant to execute tender in
question. He further submits that the allegations are for recovery of Rs.
1,39,51,194/- and further allegation is that two Hywa vehicle and one
J.C.B. of the informant have been kept by these petitioners. He further
submits that by writing letter dated 28.11.2014 and 18.03.2015 the
petitioners have informed the matter to the Officer-in-Charge, Jadugora
police station, East Singhbhum about the intentionally parking the said
Hywa vehicles and J.C.B. by the informant in the premises of the
petitioners. It has also mentioned therein that informant is not coming to
take the said vehicles and the said vehicles are lying there. He further
submits that recovery of amount in question, legal notice has been
exchanged between the parties by way of Annexure-5 and 6 of Cr.M.P.
No. 1497 of 2016. He further submits that in first legal notice only a sum
of Rs. 86,06,457/- was claimed by the informant however, in subsequent
legal notice informant has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,39,51,194/-. He
further submits that for recovery of said amount informant has moved
before the Assistant Commissioner, Labour Court at Panipat and as the
informant has not appeared before the concerned authority the said
complaint was disposed of directing the informant to file petition before
the competent authority by order dated 09.11.2015. He further submits
that for civil wrong, criminal case has been put on motion by the
informant. He relied on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of "Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand" reported in
(2013) 11 SCC 673 wherein para 12 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held as under:
"12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High
Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the
purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or
not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential
ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the
High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal
texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially
of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a
civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this
case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings
to prevent abuse of process of the court."
8. Relying on the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that this Court is competent to quash the F.I.R.
including entire criminal proceeding and order taking cognizance and this
petition is fit to be allowed.
9. Per contra, Mrs Priya Shrestha, the learned counsel appearing
for the respondent State in Cr.M.P. No.1497/2016 submits that only F.I.R.
is under challenge and there are allegations against the petitioners, the
Court may not quash the F.I.R.
10. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
State in Cr.M.P. No. 2162/2016 submits that chargesheet has been
submitted and cognizance has been taken. He further submits that there
is no illegality in cognizance order and at this stage, the Court may not
exercise its power under section 482 Cr.P.C.
11. The Court has gone through the materials on record and finds
that for recovery of amount of Rs. Rs. 1,39,51,194/-, F.I.R. has been
lodged. Further allegation is that two Hywa vehicles and one J.C.B have
been illegally kept by the petitioners. Prima facie, it appears that for
recovery of amount occurrence is of the year, 2012 whereas the F.I.R.
has been lodged on 08.10.2015. The informant has approached the
Assistant Commissioner, Labour Court, Panipat for recovery of amount in
question but the informant has not appeared before the said Court and
the case was disposed of directing the informant to move before the
competent authority inspite of that informant has not moved before the
competent authority for recovery of amount and has chosen to file this
case. It appears that informant has lost interest in this case as on
05.05.2022 Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, learned counsel informed the Court
that the opposite party no. 2 has taken the file from him two years back
and he has no instruction to argue the case and it was observed by the
Court that O.P. No. 2 is required to make alternative arrangement to
pursue the case on his behalf and with a view to provide one more
opportunity to the O.P. No. 2, the matter was adjourned. Inspite of that
informant has not appeared before the Court. Contents of the F.I.R.
suggests that matter is civil in nature. Inspite of direction by the Labour
Court to appear the informant before the competent authority, informant
has not appeared and maliciously lodged this case.
12. The Court has perused the order dated 06.08.2016 by which
the learned court has taken cognizance. It is well settled that for taking
cognizance a detailed order is not required to be passed however, what
are the prima facie materials against the petitioner, is required to be
disclosed in the cognizance order, which is lacking in the case in hand.
13. In view of the above facts and the reasons and analysis,
entire criminal proceeding as well as F.I.R. arising out of Jugsalai P.S.
Case No. 320/2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 3341 of 2015 including
cognizance order dated 06.08.2016 passed in Jugsalai P.S. Case No.
320/2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 3341 of 2015 pending in the court
concerned, are hereby quashed.
14. Both the petitions stand disposed of. Pending I.A., if any stands,
disposed of. Interim order is vacated.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/-
