Jharkhand High Court
Vijay Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 August, 2023
1 Cr.M.P. No. 1008 of 2014
with
Cr.M.P. No. 178 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1008 of 2014
1. Vijay Kumar Singh
2. Sanjay Kumar Singh
3. Dinbandhu Chatterjee
4. Prasad Chatterjee
5. Uma Shankar Rai Lal ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sunil Kumar ... Opposite Parties
With
Cr.M.P. No. 178 of 2015
Sunil Kumar ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Vijay Kumar Singh ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathy, Advocate (In Cr.M.P.-1008/14)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankur Anand, Advocate (In Cr.M.P.-178/15)
For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. (In Cr.M.P.-1008/14)
Mr. Achinto Sen, A.P.P. (In Cr.M.P.-178/15)
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ankur Anand, Advocate (In Cr.M.P.-1008/14)
Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathy, Advocate (In Cr.M.P.-178/15)
-----
10/07.08.2023 Heard Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners in Cr.M.P. No.1008 of 2014 and for opposite party no.2 in Cr.M.P.
No.178 of 2015, Mr. Ankur Anand, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.178 of 2015 and for opposite party no.2 in Cr.M.P.
No.1008 of 2014 and Mrs. Vandana Bharti and Mr. Achinto Sen, learned
counsel for the State in Cr.M.P. Nos. 1008 of 2014 and 178 of 2015
respectively.
2. Both these petitions are being heard together with the consent of the
parties considering that the petitioners and opposite party no.2 are
practicing Advocates at Madhupur in both the cases.
3. Cr.M.P. No.1008 of 2014 has been filed for quashing the entire
with
Cr.M.P. No. 178 of 2015
complaint case vide P.C.R. Case No.270/2013, T.R. No.989/2014 including
the order of cognizance dated 28.02.2014, pending in the court of the
learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur.
4. P.C.R. Case No.270/2013 was filed alleging therein that on 21.07.2013
at about 07:30 P.M., while the complainant was in his Chamber cum
residence, the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 caught hold the complainant and
forcibly dragged into their adjacent room where wife of the complainant was
also present and there was hot exchange of words and the complainant
further says that due to accused no.2 he has lost election of Sub Divisional
Bar Association, Madhupur. It was also said that accused no.2 has
threatened that he will again implicate the complainant in other false and
fabricated case. The accused no.3 took out a dagger and demanded Rs.10
Lakhs from the complainant. The accused no.4 produced some papers for
signature and all the accused persons also assaulted with fist and slaps. On
hearing hue and cry of the complainant and his wife, the witness nos. 2 to 4
arrived at the spot and tried to rescue the complainant. It was further said
that accused nos. 3 and 4 adamantly stated that if the complainant would
not put his signature on blank sheets of paper, then he will do away with his
life then witness no.1 assured the accused persons for payment of Rs.10
Lakhs. It was also said that the accused no.2 unlocked the briefcase and
took out Rs.10,000/- while accused no.5 crushed the Cell phone of the
complainant and on this score, the case was filed on 07.03.2014.
5. Cr.M.P. No.178 of 2015 has been filed for quashing the entire criminal
proceeding including the complaint case being P.C.R. Case No.239/2013
including the order of cognizance dated 15.04.2014, pending in the court of
with
Cr.M.P. No. 178 of 2015
the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur.
6. P.C.R. Case No.239/2013 was filed alleging therein that an agreement
was made on 15.07.2006 between complainant and accused persons in
connection with landed property having Jamabandi no.59/78 at Patalchapti.
The value of land was Rs.3 Lakhs. On that day, Rs.15,000/- case was
delivered to accused Kumar Chatterjee. On 10.08.2006, a bank draft was
also prepared of Rs.49,800/- by the complainant in favour of Kumar
Chatterjee-accused. Part wise payments were made to the accused Kumar
Chatterjee on several dates. Later on dispute developed on the point of
money. The complainant delivered Rs.2 Lakhs to the accused Kumar
Chatterjee on his demand. The accused Iqbal assured complainant that land
would be registered after getting NOC. On 13.06.2013, the complainant
came to have learnt that land was registered to someone else. It has been
arraigned that alleged sale deed was executed in connivance with Sunil
Kumar without giving information to the complainant. It has been indicated
that Sunil Kumar deluded the complainant with having the knowledge that
he was party in that agreement done on 15.07.2006. It has been arraigned
that accused persons engulfed whole money arisen out of that transaction.
The accused persons also threatened the complainant for dire consequence.
7. Cr.M.P. No.1008 of 2014 was referred to the DLSA, Deoghar
considering that the petitioners and opposite party no.2 are practicing
Advocates, however, report of the DLSA is on the record, which suggests
that they have not settled the matter and that is why, the matter has been
heard on merit.
8. Mr. Jai Shankar Triapthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
with
Cr.M.P. No. 178 of 2015
in Cr.M.P. No.1008 of 2014 submits that the petitioners have been falsely
implicated in the case and entire allegations are false. He further submits
that as a counter blast case, the petitioners have been implicated in the
present case. He also submits that the case of the petitioners is covered by
many judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, entire
criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.
9. On the other hand, Mr. Ankur Anand, learned counsel appearing for
opposite party no.2 in Cr.M.P. No.178 of 2015 opposes the prayer and
submits that in the complaint, there are disclosure of ingredients of sections
of the Indian Penal Code.
10. Mr. Ankur Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in
Cr.M.P. No.178 of 2015 submits that the petitioner, who happens to be a
practicing Advocate at Madhupur, has been falsely implicated in the case. He
submits that the case against the petitioner is not maintainable. He further
submits that the case against the petitioner is civil in nature. On these
grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be
quashed.
11. Mrs. Vandana Bharti and Mr. Achinto Sen, learned counsel appearing
for the State in both the petitions jointly submit that the learned court has
rightly taken cognizance against the petitioners, who happen to be
practicing Advocates at Madhupur.
12. The Court has looked into the contents of the complaint petition in
Cr.M.P. No.1008 of 2014 and finds that there is allegation of demanding
Rs.10 Lakhs and if they have been failed to pay the same, it has been
alleged that threatening was issued to the effect that they will be implicated
with
Cr.M.P. No. 178 of 2015
in false case. In Cr.M.P. No.178 of 2015, the allegations are made with
regard to transfer of land on the basis of an agreement to other persons.
When the demand was made for return of the money, the complainant was
abused and threatened for dire consequence. There are allegations of using
filthy language in the complaint petition. Thus, there are allegations. The
reason is not coming within the parameters of quashing the entire criminal
proceedings in both the cases. At least such type of allegations are not
expected from the petitioners, who happen to be practicing Advocates at
Madhupur. They are fighting with each other and in spite of endeavour of
the Court to settle the matter, they have refused to settle.
13. So far as the argument canvassed by Mr. Ankur Anand, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.178 of 2015 with regard to
the case against the petitioner is civil in nature is concerned, it is well
settled that if the criminality is made out, both civil and criminal cases can
go together. A reference may be made to the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. v.
Biological Ltd. and others; [(2000) 3 SCC 269] .
14. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and analysis, no case of
interference is made out.
15. Accordingly, both these petitions are dismissed.
16. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, stands vacated.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
