Jharkhand High Court
Garima Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1206 of 2021
1. Garima Pandey
2. Anita Singh
3. Abhishek Kumar
4. Ram Surat Pandey ..... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Manoj Lakara @ Chanchal Lakra ..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dubey, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Mihir Kunal Ekka, A.C. to S.C.-V.
------
04/ 02.02.2022 Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners and Mr. Mihir Kunal Ekka, learned A.C. to S.C.-V,
appearing for the State.
2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in
view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation
arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained
about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter
has been heard.
3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for
quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the F.I.R., arising
out of SC/ST Birsa Nagar P.S. Case No. 02 of 2020 for the offences
alleged under Sections 406, 417, 420, 323, 504, 506, 379, 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending in the Court
of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Jamshedpur.
4. The prosecution case in short is based on the typed copy of
statement of one Manoj Lakada @ Chancal Lakada, who state that he is
resident of Birsa Nagar and proprietor of Kaam Enterprises, which deals
in contract in TELCO Company. One Pappu Singh of Birsa Nagar is
partner in his firm. Informant further alleged that on request of Anita
Singh, he had given Rs. 12,00,000/- for competing study of her son. It is
also stated that Anita Singh had promised that when her son employed he
will return the amount, but even after employed at Bangalore neither her
son nor she herself returned the amount. It is further alleged that on
13.02.2020 one Ram Surat Pandey, father-in-law of Abhishek Kumar,
Anita Singh and her son called him at his home and called bad name by
taking name of my caste in derogatory words. Again on 14.02.2020
Abhishek Kumar has called bad name to my staff, and further on
15.02.2020 accused persons have stolen the computers and statute of
Ganesha from my office. On such facts FIR was lodged under various
sections of Indian Penal Code and also under SC/ST Act.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that on
reading of the version of the informant in the written complaint, no case
under Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out against the petitioners. He
submits that it is a fit case to interfere by this Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. Learned counsel further submits that the case of the petitioners is
fully covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710.
6. The Court has perused the FIR, in which the allegation is
leveled against the petitioners. On perusal of the written complaint before
the police, it transpires that the petitioners and the others have assaulted
the informant and also called the caste of the petitioner in abusive words.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is not able to
demonstrate the matter for quashing of the FIR.
8. Reference may be made in the case of State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in para-102 held as follows:-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated
by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code which we have extracted and reproduced
above, we give the following categories of cases by
way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of
any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,
though it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised
and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to
give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order
of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only
a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)
of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there
is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(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."
9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, no case of interference is
made out. As such this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
