Jharkhand High Court

Sakal Deo Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 31 July, 2023

                                                      1                  Cr.M.P. No. 717 of 2017


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                Cr.M.P. No. 717 of 2017
                1.   Sakal Deo Singh
                2.   Deevi Sai Babu
                3.   Santosh Kr. Sandilya @ Santosh Kr. @ Santosh Kr. Tiwari
                                                                ... Petitioners
                                            -Versus-
                1.   The State of Jharkhand
                2.   Paritosh Kumar Singh                       ... Opposite Parties
                                             -----

            CORAM:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                              -----
            For the Petitioners        : Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate
            For the State              : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P.
            For O.P. No.2              : None
                                              -----

04/31.07.2023        Notice upon opposite party no.2 has been effected. Vide order dated

04.07.2023, the matter was adjourned with a view to provide one more

opportunity to opposite party no.2. Today when the matter was called out,

nobody has responded on behalf of opposite party no.2.

2. In that view of the matter, this petition is being heard on merit in

absence of opposite party no.2.

3. Heard Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel for the petitioners and

Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the State.

4. This petition has been filed for quashing of cognizance order dated

03.09.2016 including entire criminal proceeding of Deoghar P.S. Case

No.727 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No.2095 of 2013/2096 of 2013,

pending in the court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Deoghar.

5. Vide order dated 20.11.2017, notices were issued upon opposite party

no.2 and further proceeding was stayed and subsequently by the order

dated 15.07.2022, the learned court has issued bailable warrant of arrest,

non-bailable warrant of arrest as well as processes under Sections 82 and

83 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners simultaneously by one order, which has

been challenged by filing I.A. No.3439 of 2023 and the said I.A. has been

allowed vide order dated 04.07.2023. Thus, the order dated 15.07.2022 is

also under challenge.

6. The FIR was registered by the opposite party no.2 alleging therein

that on 27.11.2013 at about 7:30 PM while he was sitting in his home with

his friends he saw a vehicle which suddenly stopped near the gate and six

persons got inside the gate. It was further alleged that he saw Deevi Sai

Babu, Sakal Deo Singh and Santosh Kumar (petitioners) and three unknown

persons who were carrying arms. Deevi Sai Babu (Petitioner No.2) caught

hold the collar of the informant and Sakal Deo Singh & Santosh Kumar

(Petitioner No. 1 & 3) started assaulting the informant and snatched the

gold-chain from the neck & cash of Rs.5,500/- from the pocket of the

Informant. Deevi Sai Babu asked the Informant to return the document

and to withdraw the Title Suit filed at Ranchi and took out the revolver

from his waist and pointed on temple of the informant and threatened to

kill him. Sakal Deo Singh in the meanwhile asked that the uncle had

given all the documents upon which the informant had filed the civil suit.

It was further alleged that Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty Lacs) was demanded

by way of extortion besides all the documents as well as withdrawal of the

civil suit. It was also alleged that all the accused persons dragged

the informant into the vehicle but the persons present there objected

so, the informant was pushed out of the vehicle and fled away

threatening the informant to withdraw the case and to return

all the documents within 72 hours, failing which the informant would be

killed.

7. Mr. Bakshi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners have been allowed anticipatory bail by the learned District and

Sessions Judge, Deoghar vide order dated 27.05.2014. He further submits

that petitioner nos.1 & 2 are Trustees of 'World Buddha Foundation' and

petitioner no.3 is the Accountant of the said Foundation, which is a Buddhist

Minority and a charitable trust and there has been no criminal antecedent

prior to institution of instant case against the petitioners and all of them

have been dragged into the present criminal case as the informant and his

associates namely Shiv Dutt Sharma and many others have greedy eyes

over the property of 'World Buddha Foundation' situated at Ranchi,

Ramgarh, Barka Chumba, Delhi, Dehradun, Chhatisgarh, Bodh Gaya and

other places. He further submits that the petitioners have been dragged into

the criminal case on the instigation of Shiv Dutt Sharma, who is the person

behind the picture in this case. He also submits that on 22.05.1976, World

Buddha Foundation was formed by Dr. Hari Narayan Chaturvedi @

Dr. Harish Sankrityayan by his donation and on 26.09.1978, the Deed of

Trust of World Buddha Foundation was registered under Indian Trust Act,

1882 at Ranchi. He submits that the said institution is running

and managing a number of educational schools, colleges, temples, houses

for Buddhist Monks to stay and live at various places in different districts in

different States. He submits that from 14.09.2013, the Chairman of the

said Foundation namely Dr. Hari Narayan Chaturvedi @ Dr. Harish

Sankrityayan was not traceable then the Secretary of the organization has

submitted a written complaint before the Officer-in-Charge, Bariatu

Police Station, Ranchi vide letter dated 23.09.2013 for lodging of an FIR

with respect to kidnapping of the Chairman and the said written

complaint has also been received by the office of the S.S.P., Ranchi, D.S.P.,

Ranchi and S.P., Nigrani, Ranchi and pursuant to that Bariatu P.S. Case

No.38 of 2014 has been registered against the persons including opposite

party no.2. He further submits that it is unbelievable that such incident of

snatching will be done by the petitioners. He relied upon the

judgment passed in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal;

[(2007) 12 SCC 1]. He further submits that the case of the petitioners is

further covered in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and

others; [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]. In this background, he submits that

the case is maliciously filed against the petitioners and they are

unnecessarily facing the trial.

8. Paragraphs 27 and 28 of the judgment passed in Inder Mohan

Goswami (supra) are quoted hereinbelow:

"27. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage.

28. This Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [(1977) 2 SCC 699 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 404] observed that the wholesome power under Section 482 CrPC entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a

weapon of harassment or persecution. The Court observed in this case that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the legislature. This case has been followed in a large number of subsequent cases of this Court and other courts."

9. Mr. Dubey, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned

court has rightly taken cognizance.

10. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the

parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that

admittedly earlier the case was registered against the informant (opposite

party no.2) and Shiv Dutt Sharma and others for kidnapping of Dr. Hari

Narayan Chaturvedi @ Dr. Harish Sankrityayan and subsequently the

present case has been filed. In spite of notice, opposite party no.2 has

chosen not to appear before this Court. It has been informed by the learned

counsel for the petitioners that even before the learned court, the informant

is not appearing. Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are Trustee and petitioner no.3 is

the Accountant of the said Foundation. In the FIR, it has been alleged that