Sugandh Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 1242 Jhar

                                                1

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               Cr.M.P. No. 2537 of 2021
             1.   Sugandh Kumar, aged about 26 years, S/o Shree Devendra Thakur,
                  Resident of village- Pini Hassanpur, P.O. Hassanpur, P.S. Vaishali,
                  District- Vaishali, State-Bihar, PIN-844123
             2.   Abhay Kumar, aged about 29 years, S/o Sri Chandeshwar Singh, R/o
                  Ward No.8, Bahuwara Bidupur, P.O. & P.S. Vaishali, District- Vaishali,
                  State- Bihar, PIN-844502
             3.   Abhishek Kumar, aged about 27 years, S/o Sanjay Kumar Thakur, R/o
                  village Pini Hassanpur, P.O. Abul Hassanpur, P.S. Vaishali, District-
                  Vaishali, State- Bihar, PIN-844123              ... Petitioners

                                           -Versus-
                  The State of Jharkhand                              ... Opposite Party
                                             -----

             CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                             -----
             For the Petitioners             : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, Advocate
             For the Opposite Party-State    : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, GA-II
                                             -----

06/29.03.2022. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and

Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the opposite party-State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the FIR as well as entire

criminal proceeding in connection with Argora P.S. Case No.215/2021

registered under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal

Code, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

3. The FIR was lodged on the statement of one Arvind Kumar Ojha, the

Circle Officer, Argora Anchal, Ranchi, wherein, it was alleged that he and

officer in charge of Argora Police Station entered into the office of Manrega

Majdoor Vikas Sangathan, situated at D/84, Road No.1, Ashok Nagar, P.S.

Argora, Ranchi and during investigation found seven persons were present

in the office of said Sangathan. On enquiry, they disclosed that they are

employee of the said Sangathan since a one month. It was further alleged

in the FIR that the informant and officer in charge of Argora Police Station

seized the documents of the office and also sealed the office of the said

Sangathan in presence of one Neeraj Kumar, who is legal advisor of the

Sangathan. It was also alleged that Neeraj Kumar produced some

documents belonging to the Sangathan which were also duly seized and

seizure list was prepared. The informant further alleged that out of 43

seized application forms, he talked with some applicants on mobile phone,

out of which one is Ram Pravesh Kumar who disclosed that the Sangathan

has demanded Rs.6,150/- for providing Kit for his appointment on the post

of Block in charge thereafter Rs.7,000/- paid through Google pay on the

mobile phone of one Dharmendra Kumar on 28.07.2021 and on enquiry

Ram Pravesh Kumar also disclosed that he had not put his signature on

application forms. Ram Pravesh Kumar further disclosed on mobile phone

that though he had paid Rs.6,150/- to Sangathan, but till date neither Kit

nor appointment letter has been handed over to him. The informant also

alleged that he also talked with one another applicant namely Rajesh

Ranjan who also disclosed that he paid Rs.6,150/- through UPI in mobile

phone number of one Premraj and after payment I.D. Card and membership

certificate handed over to him, but appointment letter and Kit have not

been provided, till date by the organization.

4. Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that there is no ingredients of alleged sections on which FIR is lodged. By

way of referring Annexure-2 of the petition, he submits that the Sangathan

in question is registered with Inspector of Registration, Bihar, Patna in the

name of Manrega Majdoor Vikash Sangathan. He further submits that the

statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is not recorded till date by the

Investigating Officer. He relied upon direction nos. (1), (3) and (5) given in

paragraph 102 of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and

others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SC 335. He further submits that the

police has got no jurisdiction to seal the premises in question without any

cause of action.

5. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the opposite party-State has

objected the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and

submits that the premises has been sealed on instruction of the Circle

Officer, Argora Anchal, Ranchi and not by the police.

6. After going through the FIR, this Court is not inclined to quash the

FIR.

7. At this stage, Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey learned counsel for the

petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file

appropriate petition before the competent court for unsealing of the

premises, in question.

8. Accordingly, this petition is permitted to be withdrawn and the same

stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/