Jharkhand High Court
Rajesh Kumar Mishra @ Rajesh Kumar vs The State Of Jhrakhand on 21 February, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr.M.P. No. 1037 of 2019
----
Rajesh Kumar Mishra @ Rajesh Kumar, aged about 48 years, son of Sri
Ramesh Chandra Mishra, resident of 306, 3rd Floor, Purnima Apartment, Lane
No.1, Salimpur, Ahra, PO and pS Kadam Kuna, District Patna(Bihar)
..... Petitioner
-- Versus --
1.The State of Jhrakhand
2.Vaidya Nath Singh, son of Laleshwar Singh, resident of Near Bye Pass Road,
PO Sudna, PS Daltonganj, District Palamau,PIN 822101 (Jharkhand)
...... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate
For the State :- Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P
----
7/21.02.2022 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.
By order dated 18.06.2019 notice was issued upon the
O.P.No.2 and in the meantime interim order was provided. In the order
dated 13.07.2021 it has been recorded that notice upon the O.P.No.2 has
been served which has been received personally by O.P.No.2 and in
anticipation of the appearance of the O.P.No.2, the matter was adjourned for
four weeks. The matter was again taken on 08.09.2021 and on request, the
matter was adjourned for 30.09.2021. On 30.09.2021, again the O.P.No.2
has not responded and inspite of repeated call and with a view to provide
further more opportunity, the matter was adjourned for 09.12.2021. The
same was the position on 09.12.2021. Much opportunity was provided in
view of these orders to the O.P.No.2 to appear and make out the case on
behalf of the O.P.No.2 and inspite of that, nobody has responded on behalf
of the O.P.No.2. Today also on repeated call nobody has responded on
behalf of the O.P.No.2. Accordingly, this matter has been heard on merit ex-
parte against the O.P.No.2 and is being disposed of.
This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal
proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.419 of 2007 including the
order dated 04.06.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Palamau at Daltonganj whereby cognizance has been taken under sections
341, 420, 392/34 IPC by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at
Daltonganj against the petitioner, pending in the court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj.
The O.P.No.2 has filed the complaint case stating therein that
as he was desirous to purchase a Maruti 800 Car, he had visited the office of
Mahindra and Mahindra Finance, where the present petitioner was the
Senior Manager and it is stated that the co-accused Vikash Purwar and Ayub
Khan asked that an amount of Rs.49,938/- is required to be deposited as
principal amount besides Rs.40,000/- for instalment and thereafter an
amount of Rs.1,70,000/- would be sanctioned as loan at the rate of 9% per
annum interest which is to be repaid in equal installment within 35 months.
It has been stated that Opposite Party No.2 after depositing Rs.49,938/- and
Rs.40,000/- got the Maruti 800 Case delivered which was registered by
Opposite Party No.2 being Registration No.JH01F-2974. It has further been
stated that from time to time Opposite Party No.2 had deposited
considerable amount, inspite thereof, he received a notice for Rs.30,000/-
and on 23.04.2006, the vehicle was robbed by Prabhat Singh and Vikash
Kumar and in spite of repeated attempts, the complainant did not get his
vehicle back.
Mr. Das, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner with regard to the
vehicle in question and inspite of that the petitioner has been made one of
the accused in the complaint petition and cognizance has been taken against
the petitioner. He draws the attention of the Court to para no.2 of the
petition and submits that there is allegation against the petitioner and one
Vikash Kumar and Ayub Khan about the installment and interest part with
regard to the finance of the vehicle in question. He further submits that in
para no.7 it has been disclosed that when complainant coming from Ranchi
to Daltonganj on the vehicle in question, one Prabhat Singh and Vikash
Kumar robbed alongwith 3-4 others persons and seized the vehicle. He
further submits that so far these two persons are concerned, they moved
before this Court in Cr.P.M.No.2911 of 2017 and the cognizance against both
of them have been quashed by this Court by order dated 14.02.2019. He
further submits that for quashing the entire criminal proceeding, this Court
has looked into the cognizance order and after going through the cognizance
order and the judgment relied in the case of Mahmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir
Mohammad Tunda reported in AIR 2015 SC 2195 and quashed the order.
In view of the above fact and considering the materials on
record it transpires that the mode of finance was explained to the
complainant for purchasing the vehicle on finance by the petitioner. The
vehicle in question was seized by Prabhat Singh and Vikash Kumar. There is
no allegation of any seizure and other transaction with regard to the
petitioner and it can be said that the case of the petitioner is at better
footing than those two persons who have moved before this Court in
Cr.M.P.No.2911 of 2017.
In view of the above discussion and considering that the
cognizance order has already been quashed against two other persons, the
cognizance order dated 04.06.2007, in connection with Complaint Case
No.419 of 2007, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Palamau at Dalgonganj is quashed.
The matter is remitted back to the concerned court to examine
the allegations against the petitioner afresh and pass the order afresh in
accordance with law.
Cr.M.P. No.1037 of 2019 stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)
SI/,
