Jharkhand High Court
Ram Narayan Keshri @ Ramnarayan ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 July, 2022
1 Cr.M.P. No. 2653 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr.M.P. No. 2653 of 2021
----
Ram Narayan Keshri @ Ramnarayan Prasad Keshri, aged about 73 years,
son of late Mathura Sao, resident of Main Road, Sadar Chatra, PO Chatra,
PS Sadar, District Chatra. ..... Petitioner
-- Versus --
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Santosh Kumar Keshri, son of Nand Kishore Prasad Keshri, resident of
Gudri Bazar, Chatra, PO Chatra, PS Sadar, District Chatra
...... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioners :- Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. P.D.Agarwal, Spl.P.P.
----
9/19.07.2022 By filing this application under section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order
dated 18.12.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chatra, in
Complaint No.63 of 2006 whereby cognizance for the offence under
sections 147, 323, 427, 504, 379 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code has
been taken against the petitioner.
2. It is submitted that the persons who are the family
members their case has been quashed by this Court in Cr.M.P.No.186 of
2007 and Cr.M.P.No.187 of 2007 and the petitioner is not the family
member of the complainant and in view of that the case of the petitioner
is on the better footing.
3. Notice has been issued upon the O.P.No.2 by order dated
03.12.2021 and office note suggest that notice was personally received
by the O.P.No.2. This matter was adjourned on 21.2.2022, 09.3.2022,
12.4.2022 and 10.5.2022 and inspite of such adjournments, the O.P.No.2
has not appeared. It appears that O.P.No.2 has lost its interest and
accordingly this petition has been heard on merit.
4. The allegation in the complaint petition inter alia is that one
13.2.2003, 14.2.2003 and 15.2.2003 the accused persons started
damaging the articles of his ship and when the complainant objected the
accused persons they abused and gave fists and slaps and certain
amount has been taken away from the shop. It was further alleged that
the complainant's father was forced to sign the blank papers and they
were threatening to execute a sale deed in favour of the wife of the
complainant. Further allegations have been made regarding about Rs.2
lakhs withdrawn and kept by the father of the complainant is missing
from the locker. The accused persons alleged to have taken away
complainant's mother's gold and silver ornaments kept in a box.
5. From the record it appears that in the year 2003 the
complainant was prosecuted under section 307/34 and 498A/34 IPC and
section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for the atrocities committed and in
sessions Trial No.100 of 2003 the complainant was convicted by the
Sessions Court in terms of judgment dated 2.5.2005 and he was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under
section 498-A IPC. The complainant accordingly completed sentence and
was finally released on 18.1.2006. Although the occurrence allegedly had
taken place between 13.2.2003 to 15.2.2003, but no complaint petition
was filed or First Information Report was lodged before 24.2.2003 when
the complainant was taken into custody. It was only after release, the
complaint case was filed alleging that the occurrence took place three
years back. Besides the above, no specific allegations have been made
against the accused persons in the complaint petitions, rather only
omnibus allegations have been made. Taking into consideration all these
facts of the case, prima facie, it appears that lodging of the complaint
and making allegations after he was released from custody are nothing
but a retaliation and an abuse of process of law. These aspects of the
matter have not been considered by the Magistrate while taking
cognizance of the offence and passing the impugned order. The
impugned order of taking cognizance therefore cannot be sustained in
law.
6. For the reasons aforesaid the application is allowed and the
orders of taking cognizance as also the entire criminal proceeding
initiated against the petitioner in the aforesaid complaint case is hereby
quashed.
7. Cr.M.P. No. 2653 of 2021 stands allowed.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/,
