Dhananjay Kumar Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 1100 Jhar

                                     1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          Cr.M .P. No.1109 of 2013
      1. Dhananjay Kumar Sinha
      2. Dr. Raj Kumar
                                            ...... Petitioners
                            Versus
     1.The State of Jharkhand
     2. Mithilesh Kumar Verma
                                                 ...... Opposite Parties
                                 With
                          Cr.M.P. No. 1017 of 2013

 Brajnesh Chandra Vidyarthi                       ......    Petitioner
                         Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Mithilesh Kumar Verma

                                                  ......    Opp. Parties.

                    ---------

CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                           ---------
For the Petitioners       : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
                             Miss. Aprajita Bhardwaj, Advocate
                             Mr. Sameer Ranjan, Advocate
                            (in Cr.M.P. 1017 of 2013)
                             Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
                             Miss. Apoorva Singh, Advocate
                           (In Cr.M.P. No. 1109 of 2013)
For the State               Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.
                            ( In Cr.M.P. No. 1109 of 2013)
                            Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl. P.P.
                            (In Cr.M.P. No. 1017 of 2013)
                           .........................

5/Dated: 14/03/2023

In all these petitions common question of law and facts and order

taking cognizance are under challenge that is why all these petitions have been

earlier tagged together and have been heard together with the consent of the

parties.

2. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel submits that the O.P. No. 2 has

taken 'No Objection Certificate' from him about three years back hence he is

not in a position to argue the matter.

3. As the 'No Objection Certificate' was taken by the O.P. No. 2 three

years back it was incumbent upon him to make alternative arrangement to

argue the matter on his behalf inspite of that he has not made any

arrangement to argue the matter and considering that the matters are of the

year, 2013 these matters are being heard on merit.

4. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel and Mr. Rahul Kumar,

learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Priya Shrestha and Mr. Prabhu Dayal

Agrawal, learned counsel for the State.

5. Both these petitions have been filed for quashing of the entire

criminal proceeding in connection with C.P. Case No. 1761 of 2012 including

order dated 15.03.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi

whereby cognizance has been taken under sections 406/420/120B of the I.P.C.,

pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

6. O.P. No. 2 had filed a Complaint Case bearing C.P. Case No. 1761

of 2012 alleging therein that the complainant is the son of an Arya Samaj and

the founder of local Arya Samaj, Dhurwa owned and governed under the

A.E.G.I.S. of Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, New Delhi.

It was further alleged that since last 10 years, the Arya Samaj,

Dhurwa and the local management of D.A.V. Public School had been divided

under two groups one working for the procurement of objectives of the

Construction of Arya Samaj and the other being self oriented to fulfill the

personal greediness of the management and assets of the local Arya Samaj,

Dhurwa.

It was further alleged that the management of D.A.V. Public

School, Dhuwra has been handed over to the newly constituted management

committee of D.A.V. Public School, Dhurwa which is subsidiary of the local Arya

Samaj, Dhuwa.

It was further alleged that the above referred Committee

comprising of the petitioner and Brajnesh Chandra Vidyarthi have indulged in

anti Arya Samaj activity and have turned their eyes greedy over the proceeds

of the School and have started to use them for their personal use and which

when brought to the notice of the supreme body, led to the dissolution of the

interim committee constituted by the Prantiya Arya Pratinidhi Sabha vide letter

no. Aa. Pra. Sa Jha.10/39.

It was further alleged that the accused persons have also

approached the competent authority for registration of the Trust depicting

themselves to be the independent body and concealing their relations with the

supreme body of the Arya Samaj.

It was further alleged that there had been several attempts made

from the side of the complainant to resolve the issue amicably but to no avail

as the accused persons connive together and in the garb of fresh registration of

the Trust wants to grab the valuable assets of the management of the D.A.V.

Public School, Dhurwa. It is further stated that on 18.09.2012 when the

complainant and witnesses have gone to the Principal's office at the school to

have discussion over the issue, they have been severely reprimanded and

scolded for pursing their legal remedies.

It was further stated that the accused persons have got the

registration of their Trust done on the strength of false and fabricated

declaration which is sufficient to enter criminal liability entailed upon them for

which they are jointly and severely responsible to be prosecuted.

7. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned senior counsel along with Mr. Rahul

Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits the D.A.V. School, Dhurwa

is being presently run by the Managing Committee constituted in accordance

with law and after due process of open election and the rival faction of Arya

Pratinidhi Sabha against whom there had been criminal cases and who had

been ousted from the new committee had concocted the instant complaint to

wreck vengeance and settle scores. He further submits that there are serious

allegations of financial irregularities and misappropriation of the funds against

the complainant and the enquiry witnesses and for which criminal proceedings

has also been drawn against them and the instant story has been concocted as

a counter blast and out of malice to settle scores with the petitioners. They

further submit that Arya Samaj, Dhurwa is a registered society under the

Societies Registration Act, 1860 and running and managing D.A.V. Public

School, Dhurwa which is affiliated to Central Board of Secondary Education

upto Class 10+2. He further submits that in the year, 2002 one Sanjay Mishra

and Treta Nath (who is the enquiry witness in the instant complaint) had

misappropriated and withdrawn Rs. 5,42,502/- from the accounts of the school

and for which an F.I.R. being Hatia P.S. Case No. 21 of 2002 has been

registered on 28.01.2002 as against Sanjay Mishra and Treta Nath for the

offence under sections 420/467/468/471 of the I.P.C. By way of drawing the

attention of the Court to Annexure-3, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for

the petitioner submits that chargesheet has been submitted on 29.08.2002

against said Treta Nath and others keeping the investigation pending against

Mithilesh Kumar Verma who is complainant of this case. He submits that in the

meanwhile owing to the two factions of Arya Samaj, Dhurwa fighting with each

other and claiming over the management of the school and the chaos

prevailing therein the S.D.O., Ranchi vide his letter contained in Memo No. 4740

dated 12.12.2003 has appointed the District Education Officer, Ranchi as the

receiver of the School. He further submits that the District Education Officer

after being nominated as a receiver had also noticed irregularities in the

functioning and management of the school and vide his written complaint dated

15.01.2014 addressed to the officer in charge, Dhurwa prayed for lawful action

as against the members of the Managing Committee of the School and upon

the complain of the District Education Officer cum Receiver dated 15.01.2004,

Dhurwa P.S. Case No. 08 of 2004 dated 15.01.2004 was registered for the

offence under section 406/120B/34 of the I.P.C. against 25 persons including

Indradeo Prasad Verma, who is the other enquiry witness in the present

complaint case.

8. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners draws

the attention of the Court to Annexure-5 of the petition and submits that

chargesheet dated 31.05.2011 has been submitted by the police wherein the

said Inderdeo Prasad Verma has been charge sheeted. He further submits that

upon creation of the State of Jharkhand, the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Jharkhand

had come into being to regulate the affairs of the Arya Samaj in the State of

Jharkhand. He submits that by order dated 01.12.2010 the Arya Pratinidhi

Sabha, Jharkhand had dissolved the previous committee running the Arya

Samaj and the school and has reconstituted the same vide annexure 6 to the

petition.

9. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submit

that the State Level Committee has nominated the petitioner no. 1 as the

Secretary of the Committee and whereas the petitioner no. 2 who is a scholar

has been appointed as a Member (Educationist) to run the DAV Public School

whereas the complainant Mithilesh Kumar has been made a member in the said

committee. He submits that vide letter dated 20.01.2011 the Sub-Divisional

Officer has taken back the management from the appointed receiver and has

handed over the same to the newly constituted committee. He further submits

that Arya Samaj, Dhurwa had been registered with the erstwhile State of Bihar

and it was decided to register the Arya Samaj, Dhurwa with the State of

Jharkhand and the same has been registered vide Registration No. 282 dated

06.06.2011 contained in Annexure-8 to the petition. He further submits that

considering the chargesheet it was decided by the State Level Body that the

previous Committee constituted vide order dated 01.12.2010 be dissolved and

a new Committee be reconstituted and vide office order as contained in Memo

No. 2011/36 dated 07.07.2011 another Committee excluding the tainted

persons including the complainant and the enquiry witnesses had been

constituted contained in Annexure-9 to the petition. He further submits that

complainant and the enquiry witnesses are facing serious allegation and

criminal cases pending against them and had been ousted from the committee

and hence the present complaint case has been filed as a counter blast of the

same.

10. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners along

with Mr. Rahul Kumar submits that registration before the Jharkhand State and

the constitution of the Managing Committee was challenged by the

complainant in W.P.(C) No. 2633 of 2012 which was dismissed as not pressed

vide order dated 27.09.2012. He further submits that apart from above cases,

there are other criminal cases against the complainant being Dhurwa P.S. Case

No. 131 of 2011 dated 02.08.2011 was registered for the offence under

sections 147/149/341/342/323/447/427/504 of the I.P.C. and Dhurwa P.S. Case

No. 144/2011 dated 20.08.2011 against Inderdeo Verma and Surendra Kumar

Verma for the offence under section 406, 420/34 of the I.P.C which has been

lodged by the petitioner namely Brajnesh Chandra Vidyarthi.

11. On these grounds, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits

that for civil wrong, complaint has been filed maliciously and the learned court

has taken cognizance. By way of taking the Court to the complaint case, he

submits that no ingredient of sections 406, 420, 120B is made out against the

petitioners however the learned court has taken cognizance under the said

sections and allowing the proceeding to continue will amount the abuse of

process of law. He relied in the case of "Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and

others V. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others" (1988) 1 SCC

692 wherein para 6 and 7 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

6. We have considered the relevant documents including the Trust deed as also the correspondence following the creation of the tenancy. We have also kept in view the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties by their respective counsel. We have further taken into consideration the natural relationship between the settlor and the son and his wife and the fall out.

7. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the

uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.

12. Relying on the said judgment, he submits that identical was the

fact and the school was the subject matter in that case and considering the

nature of dispute the Hon'ble Supreme Court has interfered with the matter

and quashed the entire criminal proceeding. On these grounds he submits that

the entire criminal proceeding may be quashed.

13. Mrs. Priya Shrestha and Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrwal, learned counsels

for the State jointly submit that the learned court has taken note of this fact

and thereafter has taken cognizance and there is application of judicial mind.

They submit that the learned court has taken care of enquiry witnesses

examined by the complainant and Solemn Affirmation of the complainant and

thereafter has taken cognizance. They submit that no interference is required

by this Court.

14. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties

the court has gone through the materials on record as well as complaint case

and S.A. of the complainant. Looking into the complaint case filed by the

complainant, it is crystal clear that allegation is made of local management of

D.A.V. Committee and the school is divided in two groups. Further from the

averment made in the complaint which has been noted hereinabove, it is

crystal clear that what are the entrustment and what has been misappropriated

has not been disclosed in the complaint petition. In the Solemn Affirmation

also the complainant has not stated what is entrustment and what has been

misappropriated by these petitioners. Admittedly the dispute is between two

groups for management of school in question. The Sub-Divisional Officer

intervened in the matter and receiver was appointed as discussed hereinabove

in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Pursuant thereto a

Committee was formed for management of the school in which the

complainant was one of the member of the committee and further considering

that complainant was involved in criminal cases and he was ousted from the

committee and a new committee was constituted which has been taken note

of as discussed hereinabove which suggests that as a counter-blast, the present

case has been filed against the petitioners. This dispute is arising out of

registration of trust and management of their school in two groups which can

be settled by way of appropriate proceeding either in the suit or any

appropriate proceeding under the Registration Act and for civil wrong when

criminality is not there the criminal case is not required to be instituted. It is

well settled law that when any complaint is filed with an ulterior motive, the

High Court is required to exercise its jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C.. In

this regard reference may be made to the case of "Vineet Kumar & Others

Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another" reported in (2017) 13 SCC 369

wherein para 41 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"41. Inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the categories as illustratively enumerated by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or harassment. When there are materials to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceeding under Category 7 as enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which is to the following effect:

"102. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

Above Category 7 is clearly attracted in the facts of the present case. Although, the High Court has noted the judgment of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, but did not advert to the relevant facts of the present case, materials on which final report was submitted by the IO. We, thus, are fully satisfied that the present is a fit case where the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the criminal proceedings."

15. Recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Krishna Lal

Chawala and Others V. State of Uttar Pradesh and others" reported in

(2021) 5 SCC 435 has considered the similar fact how the frivolous cases are

being filed. In para 22 of the said Judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

held as under:-

22. Frivolous litigation should not become the order of the day in India. From misusing the public interest litigation jurisdiction of the Indian courts to abusing the criminal procedure for harassing their adversaries, the justice delivery system should not be used as a tool to fulfil personal vendetta. The Indian judiciary has taken cognizance of this issue. In 2014, this Court elucidated as follows, the plight of a litigant caught in the cobweb of frivolous proceedings in Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India [Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 470 : (2014) 4 SCC (Civ) 424 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 712] : (SCC p. 642, para 191) "191. ... One needs to keep in mind, that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side, of every irresponsible and senseless claim. He suffers long drawn anxious periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending, without any fault on his part. He pays for the litigation, from out of his savings (or out of his borrowings), worrying that the other side may trick him into defeat, for no fault of his. He spends invaluable time briefing counsel and preparing them for his claim. Time which he should have spent at work, or with his family, is lost, for no fault of his."

While the Court's ruling pertained to civil proceedings, these observations ring true for the criminal justice machinery as well. We note, with regret, that 7 years hence, and there has still been no reduction in such plight. A falsely accused person not only suffers monetary damages but is exposed to disrepute and stigma from society. While running from pillar to post to find a lawyer to represent his case and arranging finances to defend himself before the court of law, he loses a part of himself.

16. The direction was passed in the case of"State of Haryana and

others V. Bhajan Lal and others" 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 particularly

para 102 (condition no. 2) attracts the fact of the present case. Admittedly, the

complainant and the enquiry witnesses are facing criminal cases. There is

dispute with regard to management by the school between two factions and

for that court comes to the conclusion that it is civil wrong and for a civil

wrong criminal case has been lodged which is against the mandate of law.

17. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis entire criminal

proceeding in connection with C.P. Case No. 1761 of 2012 including order

dated 15.03.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby

cognizance has been taken under sections 406/420/120B of the I.P.C., pending

in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, is hereby quashed.

18. It is made clear that if any civil case is filed that will be decided on

its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

19. Both these petitions are allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A., if

any, stands disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/