Jharkhand High Court
Sumant Jha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1061 of 2022
------
1. Sumant Jha
2. Dinesh Kumar Manjhi @ Dinesh Manjhi
.... .... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Usha Kumari .... .... .... Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate
Ms. Shreesha Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocate
Order No.05 Dated : 17.01.2023
Instant petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings
in connection with Dhanbad SC and ST P.S. Case No.02 of 2022 corresponding to
P.T.N. No.JHDH01-P000139-2022 registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 419,
420, 406, 504, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of
Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 pending in
the Court of Additional Sessions Judge VI-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST), Dhanbad.
2. The present petition raises two seminal questions.
Firstly, can a business dispute, between principal and agent for a sum of
Rs.71,27,846/- be permitted to be mutated into a criminal case?
Secondly, whether an offence under SC/ST Act will be made out on the alleged
derogatory statement in a Chamber which is not in public view?
3. The brief fact of the case is that complainant is a dealer having an agency
petrol pump of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited at Baharagora, East
Singhbhum. Petitioners are the officers of the petroleum company.
4. As per the prosecution case, the dealership of HPCL was granted by the
petitioner company to the informant for running petrol pump in the year 2009. The
Manager of the Petrol Pump, Ramesh Kumar Gawri, was appointed in the year 2014
to run the petrol pump smoothly. Initially the business was running properly by the
Manager, but later in collusion with petroleum company officials Rs.70 lakh was
misappropriated by him. On 08.09.2021, Sumant Jha, the Deputy General Manager
called husband of opposite party No.2/informant and asked him to clear the
outstanding dues to the Company and threatened to cancel the dealership, if the
outstanding amount was not cleared.
On 06.12.2021, a legal notice was sent by Hindustan petroleum raising a
demand of Rs.71,27,846/-and also regarding termination of dealership. After
receiving the notice when the informant went to the regional office on being
summoned by Regional Sale Officer, Dinesh Kumar Manjhi, she was called by her
caste name and insulted in the presence of other staffs.
It is further alleged that the mobile number of the Manager was registered
in the office of the petroleum company, whereas the mobile number of the dealer
should have been registered there.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel that instant case is instance of
malicious criminal prosecution being launched to pressurize company from riding
off the outstanding balance against the petitioner. The petitioners are the officers of
the petroleum company and as per the FIR itself, notice had been sent for clearing
the huge outstanding amount, failing which the dealership was to be terminated. In
view of the fact that these petitioners were insisting and demanding the outstanding
amount due to the company which have been framed in the present case.
6. Second limb of argument is that salutary provision of SC/ST Act, cannot
be used for malicious prosecution. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.
Venkateswaran & Others Versus P. Bakthavatchalam reported in 2022 LiveLaw
(SC) 14 has ruled against such practice and held that private civil dispute between
the parties is converted into criminal proceedings, initiation of the criminal
proceedings therefore, is nothing but an abuse of process of law and Court. Again in
the case of Hitesh Verma Versus State of Uttarakhand & Another reported in
(2020) 10 SCC 710 in para 12, 13 & 14 their Lordship held that offence under
SC/ST Act will be out when such statements are made in public view not private
place. Further, as per the prosecution case the incidence took place in the office and
not in public view and therefore prima facie case will not be made out on the basis
of assertions made.
7. Learned counsel for the State assisted by learned senior counsel for the
informant has vehemently opposed the prayer. It is submitted that simply because
there was civil dispute, but the same will not dilute the criminality for utterance
made in public view attracting the provisions of SC/ST Act. Reliance in this regard
has been placed the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Swarn Singh & Ors. Versus State through Standing Counsel & Anr., passed in
Criminal Appeal No.1287 of 2008, wherein it has been held that since there is
difference between public place and a place within public view. As per the FIR, the
allegation was made in office which was within the public view and, therefore, the
offence, as alleged will be made out.
8. It is further submitted that the informant could not pay the due amount of
Rs.71, 27,846/- with respect to the petroleum supply because of conspiracy under
which the officials of the Petroleum Company in collusion with the Manager of the
Petroleum Pump had defrauded her of the said amount.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from the tone and tenor of
the FIR which runs in three pages and more, it is evident that Rs.71,27,846/- was
due with the informant to the Petroleum Company regarding which the Legal notice
was served on 06.12.2021. In the Legal notice, it was stated emphatically that the
agency will be terminated for non-payment of the dues. It is case of the informant
that she was duped by the Manager of the Petroleum pump, but the person
concerned was not the employee of the Petroleum Company but was one who was
appointed by none other than the informant herself. For this criminality cannot be
imputed on the petitioners. Further the instant Police case has been lodged on
17.03.2022 after service of said legal notice for termination. The date on which the
said derogatory remarks were made is conspicuous by its silence in the entire FIR. It
does not state at what time or date the said incidence took place.
From the above, it is apparent that the present FIR is nothing but counter to
the Legal notice of the termination of the petroleum agency on the failure to pay the
outstanding amount running to more than ₹ 70 Lakhs. As such, permitting such
case(s) to be prosecuted will be gross abuse of the process of the Court.
Under the circumstance, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of
Dhanbad SC/ST P.S. Case No.02 of 2022 corresponding to P.T.N. No.JHDH01-
P000139-2022 is hereby quashed.
The instant Cr. M. P. stands allowed.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Anit
