Jharkhand High Court
Mukesh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 July, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr.M.P. No. 2037 of 2021
----
Mukesh Kumar Singh, aged about 37 years, son of Sri Rajnath Singh,
resident of Village-Station Road Chakulia (Near Railway Station), PO and
PS Chakulia, District East Singhbhum (Jharkhand)
..... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashishtha, Advocate
----
10/22.07.2022 Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashishtha, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent State.
This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal
proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance dated 27.03.2021
whereby cognizance of offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 of
the IPC has been taken in connection with Chakulia P.S.Case No.50 of
2020, G.R.No.116 of 2021, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., at
Ghatshila.
The FIR has been lodged alleging therein that the informant
is present working as Nagar Prabandhak and in that capacity he came to
know that one Mukesh Kumar Singh ( the petitioner ) has completed
some work vide tender bearing no.112/2019-20 estimated amount
Rs.8,34,946/- on the basis of forged character certificate which after due
verification found not to be true and therefore, his act comes under
comes under the purview of a crime in the light of notification no.8,
Niyamawali 105/2016/Na./BI/6351, dated 22.11.16 issued by the
concerned department of the government of Jharkhand.
Pursuant to the FIR charge sheet has been submitted
against the petitioner and the learned court has taken cognizance.
Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He
submits that the respondents issued a tender for construction of the PCC
road wherein last date for applying was 21.10.2019 by 2.00 pm and one
of the conditions of the tender was to submit character certificate and
the petitioner obtained character certificate from the office of the Deputy
Commissioner on 21.10.2019 which was issued by the Deputy
Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, the Senior Superintendent
of Police, East Singhbhum and the Officer Incharge of Chakulia P.S. He
submits that he has not made any document forged and this document
was issued by the responsible officer of that district which is contained at
Annexure -4. He submits that the forged document is not made by the
petitioner and he is not the maker of the same and in that view of the
matter the petitioner is not liable to be guilty under those sections
whereby the cognizance has been taken.
Per contra, Mr. Vashishtha, the learned counsel appearing
for the respondent State submits that the petitioner has filed the
application before the officer and he has not disclosed about pending of
the case against him and he has stated that there is no criminal case and
that has come in the evidence in para 19, 60 and 65 of the case diary.
Departmental case has been filed on the ground that false certificate
involved in and criminal case has been filed and the learned court has
taken cognizance.
The Court examined the entire materials on record.
The certificate contained in Annexure-4 suggest that this
has been issued by the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur and Sr. S.P., Jamshedpur as well as Officer Incharge
Chakulia P.S East Singhbhum Jamshedpur. Thus, it is apparent that this
petitioner is not the maker of that document. Explanation-2 to section
464 clarifies that for constituting offence under section 464 IPC accused
must be maker of the same. A reference may be made to the case of
"Sheila Sebastian v. R.Jawaharaj", (2018) 7 SCC 581. Paragraph no.25 of
the said judgment is quoted below:
"Keeping in view the strict interpretation of penal statute i.e.
referring to rule of interpretation wherein natural inferences are
preferred, we observe that a charge of forgery cannot be imposed on
a persons who is not the maker of the same. As held in plethora of
cases, making of a document is different than causing it to be made.
As Explanation 2 to section 464 further clarifies that, for constituting
an offence under section 464 it is imperative that a false document is
made and the accused person is the maker of the same, otherwise the
accused person is not liable for the offence of forgery."
Looking to this judgment and considering that the
document was not issued or created by this petitioner, the petitioner is
not liable to be prosecuted. Hence, the entire criminal proceeding as well
as the order taking cognizance dated 27.03.2021 whereby cognizance
has been taken in connection with Chakulia P.S.Case No.50 of 2020,
G.R.No.116 of 2021, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., at
Ghatshila is quashed.
This petition is allowed and disposed of.
I.A. if any also stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/,
