Dr.S.K. vs State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 2037 Jhar

                                        1


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                               ----

Cr.M.P. No. 3370 of 2017

----

Dr.S.K., Sharma (Satyendra Kumar Sharma) son of late Janki Sharma, Principal, Bokaro Steel City College, Bokaro, PO and PS Sector-VI, District Bokaro ..... Petitioner

-- Versus --

1.State of Jharkhand

2.Janki Tripathi, daughter of late Dr. Ranjeet Tripathi, resident of Sector- VI/B, House No.2083, PO and PS Sector-VI, Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro ...... Opposite Parties

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

       For the Petitioner :- Mr. Afaque Ahmed, Advocate
       For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
       For the State      :- Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Advocate
                                        ----

5/06.06.2022       Heard Mr. Afaque Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the

O.P.No.2 and Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondent State.

This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated

11.07.2017 passed by the learned court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Bokaro in connection with C.P.Case No.45 of 2016 where by the learned

counsel has taken cognizance against the petitioner under section 354

IPC and also for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against the

petitioner and the case is pending in that learned court.

The O.P.no.2 has filed the FIR alleging about the

misbehaviour made by this petitioner which was investigated by the

police and final form was submitted in which the case has been stated to

be not found to be proved and thereafter the O.P.no.2 filed the complaint

cum protest petition alleging therein that the complainant has alleged

that she along with her family resides at Sector VI/B, Quarter No.2083,

Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro and she is a law abiding citizen. It has further

been alleged that the father of the complainant late Dr. Ranjeet Tripathi

was founder lecturer cum former Reader and Head of the Department of

Hindi in Bokaro Steel City College, Bokaro. It has further been alleged

that the said house in which the complainant and her family members

reside, has been allotted by the BSL management. It has further been

alleged that on several occasions the petitioner tortured her and her

family members on the pretext of vacating the quarter and tried to

forcibly vacate the quarter. However, sizable amount of her father could

not be paid due to influence of the petitioner. It has further been alleged

that on 26.2.2015 at about 6 PM when the complainant was at home in

the meantime the accused persons came and knocked her door. When

she opened the main door of her house, then accused held her right

hand with bad intention and started outraging her modesty talking with

filthy language. It has further been alleged that the complainant became

afraid and called her sisters and the accused on seeing the person

coming there, started fleeing from the house. It has further been alleged

that at that relevant time no male members were present in the house

and the accused tried to get the benefit of the same. It has further been

alleged that the outer door of the house is surrounded with the grill and

by chance at that time the same was opened and the accused tried to

get the benefit of the same. It has been alleged that a complaint was

lodged in the police station but police officer has not done proper

investigation and final form was submitted. It has been alleged that after

that accused persons came on 21.3.2015 and threatened them for

withdrawal of case, failing which ready to face its consequences.

Mr. Afaque Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the said allegation in the FIR as well as in the protest cum

complaint petition are same. He took the Court to both the FIR as well as

the protest cum complaint petition. He submits that the learned Court

has not accepted the final form and he has not differed with the final

form also and only on the protest petition he has taken cognizance which

is against the mandate of law. He submits that the petitioner was

Principal of Bokaro Steel City, College and the father of the complainant

was Head of the Department of Hindi in the said college and has retired

in the year 2003 and he has not vacated the quarter and for that several

letters have been issued and on malafide intention the FIR was lodged.

Since he was being pressurized to vacate the quarter in question which

was required to be investigated by the police and final form has been

submitted and stating all these facts the case against the petitioner was

not found to be true.

Per Contra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the

O.P.No.2 submits that the Court is competent to take cognizance on the

protest petition and by way of referring the paragraph no.5 of the

complaint petition, he submits that there are serious allegations against

the petitioner and this Court may not interfere at this stage.

In view of the above facts and the submissions of the

learned counsels appearing for the parties, the Court has gone through

the materials on record. It is an admitted fact that the FIR was instituted

by the O.P.No.2 which was investigated by the police and the final form

has been submitted whereby the petitioner has not been sent up for trial.

On the protest petition filed by the O.P.no.2 the learned court has taken

cognizance. The Court has perused the FIR as well as the protest petition

and found that in both the documents the allegations are same. The

police has already investigated the matter and submitted the final form

stating therein that the case has been malafidely filed against the

petitioner as the petitioner was not vacating the quarter inspite of the

retirement and the case was not found to be true and on the protest

petition the learned court has taken cognizance. It is well settled that

once the final form is submitted it is incumbent upon the learned court

that either to accept the final form or to reject the same and thereafter

to call upon the informant to file the complaint petition. In the case in

hand, the learned court has not accepted the final form nor rejected the

final form and no reason has been disclosed in the cognizance order as

to why the cognizance is being taken inspite of the final form in favour of

the petitioner. It is well within the domain of the learned Court to differ

with the final form however, for the same some reasons are required to

be assigned on differing with the same and thereafter the court may

proceed by way of calling upon the informant which is lacking in the case

in hand. Issue of summons against anybody is a serious matter and it is

not that only two witnesses has to be examined and the learned court

will issue the summons. A reference may be made to the case of "Pepsi

Food Limited v. Special Judicial Magistrate", (1998) 5 SCC 749. Paragraph

no.28 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:

"28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, both oral and documentary, in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."

In view of the above facts, the submissions of the learned

counsels for the parties and the reasons and the analysis as referred to

above, this petition succeeds.

The order taking cognizance dated 11.07.2017 passed by

the learned court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bokaro in connection

with C.P.Case No.45 of 2016 and the entire criminal proceeding arising

thereof is quashed.

Cr.M.P. No. 3370 of 2017 stands disposed of.

I.A if any also stands disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

SI/