Anup Kumar Bihari vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4858 Jhar

                                          1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Cr.M.P. No. 1248 of 2017

Anup Kumar Bihari                         ......     Petitioner
                              Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Sriwash Addi                         ...... Opp. Parties
                   ---------

CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner       : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate
                           Mr. Harsh Chandra, Advocate
                          Mr. Saurav, Advocate
For the State             : Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2        : Mr. D.C. Mishra, Advocate
                          ...........
05/Dated: 05/12/2022
             Heard Mr.       Abhijeet Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.

Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the State and Mr. D.C. Mishra, learned

counsel for the O.P. No.2.

2. The present petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal

proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 18.06.2013 passed in connection

with Jaridih P.S. Case No. 69 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 679 of 2012 pending

in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bermo at Tenughat.

3. The complaint has been filed alleging therein that the complaint had

applied several times before the petitioner for some information through R.T.I but the

petitioner provided incomplete information. Again the complainant approached the

petitioner/accused for complete information but it was not provided. Thereafter the

complainant contacted the accused over telephone in which he was asked to visit

personally to his office on 15.05.2012 at 8 P.M. and was informed that he will get all

the information on the said date. When the complainant reached his office on

15.05.2012, he was called inside his cabin. The accused gave him two white paper

and asked him to sign but the complainant denied. Then the accused called two

unknown persons inside his cabin and asked them to forcefully make the complainant

sign on the white paper. After that those unknown persons assaulted the complainant

and in fear the complainant signed those white paper. The accused kept that paper

with him and told them that both of his hands are now cut and he can do nothing.

When the complainant informed this incident to his superior authority, he was

informed that he will get back that paper soon. Even after four days when no action

was taken the complainant filed the complaint against the petitioner.

4. Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

complaint is not affidavited however, under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the learned

Magistrate has sent the complaint for registration of F.I.R. and investigation pursuant

to which F.I.R. has been registered and after investigation police submitted

chargesheet and learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioner

without appreciating the fact that this petitioner had earlier lodged complaint against

the complainant with regard to electricity by which the petitioner has disconnected

the electricity connection of the petitioner for that O.P. No. 2 filed C.C. No. 81/2012

before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Bokaro which was decided against the

O.P. No. 2. He further submits thereafter the O.P. No. 2 filed Case No. 01/Lok

(electricity) 02/2012 before Lokayukta, Jharkhand which was also dismissed. He

submits that the petitioner was only discharging his official duty and on the false

pretext the complaint has been filed against the petitioner. He further submits that as

per complaint, the complainant was called at 8 A.M. which is not the office time. He

submits that the petitioner is protected under section 197 Cr.P.C.

5. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that dispute before the

District Consumer Redressal Forum, Bokaro was different however the complaint case

is different on footing. He submits that learned court has rightly taken cognizance.

6. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in the

impugned order.

7. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the

Court has gone through the materials on record. The complaint petition has been filed

by the O.P. No. 2 on the allegation that he was called upon by the petitioner at 8 A.M.

in his office. Office time is not 8 A.M. Prima facie it suggests that on concocted facts

the complaint case has been filed. Moreover complaint is not affidavited however the

learned court has sent the complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is an admitted

fact that electricity connection of the petitioner has been disconnected by this

petitioner for which O.P. No. 2 filed complaint before the District Consumer Redressal

Forum, Bokaro which was dismissed and the O.P. No. 2 was directed to pay entire bill

amount thereafter O.P. No. 2 filed complaint before the Lokayukta, Jharkhand which

was also dismissed. It appears that only as a counter-blast of aforesaid two

proceedings the present case has been filed against the petitioner. Moreover the

petitioner is protected under section 197 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court recently

has considered section 197 Cr.P.C. in the case of D. Devaraja V. Owais Sabeer

Hussain, reported in (2020) 7 SCC 695. Paragraphs 74 o and 77 of the said

judgment are quoted herein below:-

74. It is well settled that an application under Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code is maintainable to quash proceedings which are ex facie bad for want of sanction, frivolous or in abuse of process of court. If, on the face of the 8 Cr. M.P. No. 148 of 2011 complaint, the act alleged appears to have a reasonable relationship with official duty, where the criminal proceeding is apparently prompted by mala fides and instituted with ulterior motive, power under Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code would have to be exercised to quash the proceedings, to prevent abuse of process of court.

77. In our considered opinion, the High Court clearly erred in law in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order of the Magistrate impugned taking cognizance of the complaint, after having held that it was a recognised principle of law that sanction was a legal requirement which empowers the court to take cognizance. The Court ought to have exercised its power to quash the complaint instead of remitting the appellant to an application under Section 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code to seek discharge."

8. In the order taking cognizance, there is no discussion as to what material

is against the petitioner however, cognizance has been taken pursuant to

chargesheet submitted by the police.

9. In view of the above facts and considering that prima facie criminal

proceeding is apparently promoted by mala fides and instituted with ulterior motive by

the O.P. No. 2 as electricity connection of the O.P. No. 2 was disconnected by this

petitioner which was subject matter before the District Consumer Redressal Forum,

Bokaro which was dismissed thereafter the O.P. No. 2 filed complaint before the

Lokayukta, Jharkhand which was also dismissed, the entire criminal proceeding

including order taking cognizance dated 18.06.2013 passed in connection with Jaridih

P.S. Case No. 69 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 679 of 2012 pending in the Court

of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bermo at Tenughat, are quashed. Interim

order is vacated. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/