Jharkhand High Court
Tabrez Alam vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 23 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) No. 568 of 2023
Tabrez Alam ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ..... ... Respondents
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate.
: Ms. Sonal Sodhani, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. R.K. Shahi, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-I.
For the Resp. Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Banka, Advocate.
------
03/ 23.08.2023 Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Mr. R.K. Shahi, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Mukesh
Kumar Banka, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
2. This petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated
01.06.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Cr.
Misc. Case No. 137 of 2023, by which, the prayer made for transfer of
Complaint Case Nos. 2587 of 2016, 3126 of 2018 and 3213 of 2018 in one
court, has been rejected, pending in the court of learned Judicial
Magistrate, Ranchi.
3. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that for the same occurrence, three complaint cases
have been filed, however, on erroneous ground, the learned Judicial
Commissioner has been pleased to reject the petition by order dated
01.06.2023. He submits that the amount in all three complaints are
different, however the cause of action is same.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Banka, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that petitioner is unnecessarily trying
to delay the proceedings by way of filing the frivolous petitions before the
learned courts as well as before this court. He submits that the petitioner
has earlier moved before this court in Cr.M.P. No. 917 of 2021 for
quashing the order dated 22.02.2020, whereby, the petition, filed under
Section 317 Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the learned court. He further
submits that in the said Cr.M.P., the petitioner was directed to appear
before the learned court and in view of that, the order dated 22.02.2020
was set aside by order dated 10.08.2021, passed in Cr.M.P. No. 917 of
2021. He submits that the order taking cognizance was also challenged in
Cr.M.P. No. 3405 of 2021, which was later on withdrawn by the petitioner
on 15.09.2022. He further submits that the transactions in all the cases are
different and the amount are also different and the complainants are also
different. He submits that the complaint case No. 2587 of 2016 is at the
argument stage, wherein the argument of prosecution has already been
completed and it is fixed for argument on behalf of defence. He further
submits that in view of the above, the petitioner is only trying to delay the
matter.
5. Mr. Shahi, learned counsel appearing for the State has adopted
the argument of Mr. Banka, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
Nos. 2 and 3.
6. In view of the above submissions of the parties, it appears that
the petitioner has earlier moved before this court in Cr.M.P. No. 917 of
2021, challenging the order dated 22.02.2020, whereby, the petition, filed
under Section 317 Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the learned court. By
allowing the said petition vide order dated 10.08.2021, the following order
was passed:-
"Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Kaushil
Sarkhel, learned G.A.-V appearing for the State.
This petition has been heard through Video
Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High
Court taking into account the situation arising
due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties
have complained about any technical snag of
audio-video and with their consent this matter has
been heard.
This criminal miscellaneous petition has
been filed for quashing the order dated
22.02.2020, whereby the petition, filed under
Section 317 Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the
concerned Court.
In the interest of justice, it will be suffice to
direct the petitioner to appear before the Court of
learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi on
24.8.2021, in connection with Complaint Case
No. 2587 of 2016. The Court concerned shall
consider that the petitioner has appeared before
the Court and the Court will allow him to remain
on the same bail bond and he proceed in terms of
Judgment passed in Indian Bank Association &
Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors., reported in
(2014) 5 SCC 590.
In the interest of justice, since the direction
has been issued to the petitioner to appear before
the Court, the impugned order dated 22.02.2020,
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class, Ranchi, in connection with Complaint Case
No. 2587 of 2016, is set aside.
If the petitioner will not appear on that
date, the Court below shall take all coercive steps
against the petitioner.
With the aforesaid observation, this
criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed
of."
7. The petitioner has also moved before this court challenging the
order taking cognizance in Cr.M.P. No. 3405 of 2021, however, the said
petition was permitted to be withdrawn by order dated 15.09.2022, which is
as under:-
"Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
seeks permission to withdraw this criminal
miscellaneous petition.
Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P.,
appearing for the State and Mr. Mukesh Kumar
Banka, learned counsel appearing for the O.P.
No. 2 have got no objection.
Permission is accorded.
This criminal miscellaneous petition, is
accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn."
8. Looking into the contents of the complaint cases, it appears
that the amounts of all the complaint cases are different and the learned
Judicial Commissioner has called for the LCR from the concerned court
and after looking into the stage of complaint case No. 2587 of 2016 and
also considering that on the date of passing the order, the case was fixed
for argument, however, today it has been submitted by learned counsel
appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that now that stage has also
been proceeded and the case is fixed for argument on behalf of the defence
and in remaining two cases, the complainant evidence has already been
filed and chief has already been done by way of filing the affidavit and
also by way of serving the advance copy upon the accused, in spite of that
the accused is not coming forward to cross-examine the witnesses.
9. In view of the above, court finds that no case of interference is
made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
10. It is open for the learned counsel appearing for the parties to
take steps before the learned court for disposal of the cases at the earliest.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
