Md. Abid Hussain vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 1919 Jhar

                                                   1                   Cr.M.P. No. 2850 of 2013


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                            Cr.M.P. No. 2850 of 2013
                 Md. Abid Hussain                              ... Petitioner
                                       -Versus-
            1.   The State of Jharkhand
            2.   Sudha Barnwal                                 ... Opposite Parties
                                           -----

            CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                           -----
            For the Petitioner       : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, Advocate
            For the State            : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.
            For O.P. No.2            : None
                                           -----

06/04.05.2023     Notice upon opposite party no.2 has been effected. On 02.09.2022,

nobody had appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 and that is how the

case was adjourned with a view to provide one more opportunity by way of

last indulgence to opposite party no.2 and it was observed that if opposite

party no.2 will not appear on the next date, appropriate order shall be

passed on the basis of materials available on record. Today when the matter

is called out, nobody has responded on behalf of opposite party no.2 and

that is why this matter is being heard in absence of opposite party no.2.

2. Heard Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the State.

3. This petition has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance

dated 16.09.2013 including the entire criminal proceedings in connection

with PCR Case No.451 of 2011, pending in the court of the learned Sub

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka.

4. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the husband of the

complainant was posted as Cooperative Extension Officer in Shikaripara

Block and four LAMPS were allotted to him. It was further alleged that the

Block Development Officer, Shikaripara (petitioner) sealed LAMPS godown in

July, 2011 and later on he opened the seal. It was also alleged that the

Block Development Officer, Shikaripara sealed LAMPS godown and for

opening the seal, he demanded extortion money of Rs.2.00 lacs and

threatened the husband of the complainant to implicate him in false case. It

was further alleged that due to threatening given by the Block Development

Officer, the husband of the complainant felt difficulty and he afraid from

threatening and he proceeded on leave and came to home and narrated the

entire matter to his wife-the complainant/opposite party no.2. It was also

alleged that on 12.09.2011, the husband of the complainant received

telephonic message and one Sitaram Soren, LAMPS worker told the husband

of complainant that the Block Development Officer Shikaripara has told him

to give Rs.2.00 lacs for opening of godown of LAMPS. It was further alleged

that on 12.09.2011 the President of LAMPS, namely, Arbind Marandi told the

husband of the complainant on telephone that the matter has been settled

on consideration money of Rs.1.00 lacs and he told to give rupees one lac in

lieu of rupees two lacs. It was also alleged that on receiving the said

message, the husband of the complainant felt very uneasy and he suffered

from severe pain whole night and in morning, he was admitted in Sadar

Hospital, Deoghar, where he died on 13.09.2011. It was further alleged that

the husband of the complainant died due to said threatening, as he was

heartily weak.

5. Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the husband of opposite party no.2 was working as

Cooperative Extension Officer, Shikaripara Block and was in-charge of four

LAMPS. In the month of July, godown of LAMPS was sealed by the petitioner

and subsequently it was opened on the assurance of the husband of the

complainant that he will not repeat his mistake in future, as committed by

him. He further submits that the petitioner was on leave from 30.08.2011 to

03.09.2011 on account of Eid festival and leave for the said period was

sanctioned by the competent authority. He also submits that after

proceeding on leave, Mukhia of Shikaripara Panchayat alongwith others filed

a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka in respect of

irregularities committed in distribution of fertilizer and the said complaint

was filed on 01.09.2011. He further submits that when the petitioner

resume his duty, godown of LAMPS was opened on 10.09.2011 on

persuasion in presence of Mukhia and other persons along with husband of

opposite party no.2 and other employees of LAMPS. On 10.09.2011, the

husband of opposite party no.2 had gone to Deoghar, stating that his wife is

ill. He further submits that on 13.09.2011, the petitioner came to know that

the husband of opposite party no.2 died in Sadar Hospital, Deoghar. He

submits that later on the petitioner came to know about that incident. He

further submits that the allegation of demanding Rs.2 Lakhs from the

husband of opposite party no.2 was made before the Superintendent of

Police, Deoghar as well as the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka and the

Deputy Commissioner constituted one man Enquiry Committee and on

enquiry, report was submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka,

wherein, the petitioner was given clean-chit. He submits that thereafter

after lapse of three months, the complaint petition was filed and the learned

court has taken cognizance. On this point, he relied upon the judgment

passed in Deo Lakhan Paswan v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.; [2012

(1) JLJR 206 (SC)]. He further submits that two of the complaint

witnesses were also examined by the said Enquiry Officer, where, they have

supported the case of the petitioner. On these grounds, he submits that

entire criminal proceeding is malicious in nature and the same may kindly

be quashed.

6. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the State submits that

the learned court has taken cognizance looking into the statement of the

witnesses and has taken cognizance.

7. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the

parties, the Court has gone through the materials on the record including

the complaint petition along with enquiry report and the statement of two

witnesses named as witnesses in the complaint and order taking

cognizance. It is an admitted fact that the husband of opposite party no.2

was posted as Cooperative Extension Officer. The petitioner went on leave

from 30.08.2011 to 03.09.2011. On the complaint made by the opposite

party no.2 before the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar and the Deputy

Commissioner, Dumka, the Sub-Divisional Officer was appointed as the

Enquiry Officer and he submitted his report in which he has found that the

allegation of demanding the money is not correct. In the said enquiry, two

of the complaint witnesses have also been examined and they have not

supported the case of the complainant. Their statement is also annexed

with this petition. On the basis of that the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka

vide letter dated 09.12.2011 informed the Registrar, Cooperative Society

that the case against the petitioner was found to be false. It appears from

the order taking cognizance that relying on the statement of Amin Marandi

and Sitaram Soren, the learned court has taken cognizance against the

petitioner. The statement of two witnesses are on the record and looking

into the statement, it is crystal clear that they have not supported the case

of opposite party no.2 that too on the fact that they were witnesses in the

complaint petition itself. The learned court has noted that Bhagat Murmu

denied the allegation and thereafter cognizance has been taken. It prima

facie suggests that the order taking cognizance is mechanical in nature as

two witnesses have not supported the case of the opposite party no.2 and

order taking cognizance speaks that they have supported the case of the

opposite party no.2. Further the alleged allegation was enquired by none

other than the Sub-Divisional Officer on the direction of the Deputy

Commissioner, wherein, the petitioner was not found guilty.

8. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the order taking

cognizance dated 16.09.2013 including the entire criminal proceedings in

connection with PCR Case No.451 of 2011, pending in the court of the

learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka is quashed.

9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/