Jharkhand High Court
Dhananjay Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) No. 341 of 2023
1. Dhananjay Mishra.
2. Nirmal Kumar Singh @ Nirmal Singh ..... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Ram Chandra Kar ..... ... Respondents.
with
W.P.(Cr.) No. 342 of 2023
1. Arvind Kumar Sinha @ Arbind Kumar Sinha.
2. Amit Kumar Singh @ Amit Kumar ..... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Ram Chandra Kar ..... ... Respondents
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate.
: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate.
: Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Ashish Kumar, A.C. to S.C. (M)-III.
: Mr. Mohammad Asghar, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-II.
For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Shravan Kumar, Advocate.
------
06/ 07.11.2023 In both these matters common questions of fact, complaint
petition as well as the order taking cognizance are under challenge,
that's why both the matters have been heard together with the consent
of the parties.
2. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha and Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Ashish Kumar and
Mohammad Asghar, learned counsel appearing for the State and Mr.
Shravan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 in
the respective cases.
3. Both these petitions have been filed for quashing of the
entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated
13.03.2023, by which, cognizance for the offence under Section 447 of
the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners, in
connection with Complaint Case no. 1284 of 2021, pending in the court
of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.
4. The complaint petition was lodged by the respondent No. 2
alleging therein:-
(a) The accused persons namely (1) Capt Dhananjay Mishra, (2)
Mr. Nirmal Singh, and Tata Steel Limited (TSL) employees
namely (3) Mr. Arvind Kumar Sinha, (4) Mr. Amit Kumar, (5) Mr.
Sanjay Kumar Singh and (6) Contractor of (Tata Steel UISL) were
involved in act of committing the offence of Rioting, unlawful
assembly, voluntary causing a hurt, Criminal trespass, threatening,
extortion, assault, with intention of making construction over his
rayati land measuring 15 Katha recorded in Khata No. 5,
corresponding to RS Plot No. 634 to 642. Ramnagar, P.S. Kadma,
Jamshedpur.
(b) O.P.No.2 Ram Chandra Kar residing at House No. 27 Road
No. 4, Ram Nagar Sonari, P.S. Kadma, Jamshedpur claimed to
have purchased a land from one Ravi Rajak and Others recorded
as Khata No. 5, corresponding to R.S Plot No. 634 to 642
measuring 15 Kathas situated at Ram Nagar, Mouza Bhatia
(Uliyan), P.S. Kadma, Thana No. 1152, Ward No. 2, JNAC
Jamshedpur under an agreement of sale dated 25.09.2003 for
advance of Rs. 70,000/-. Presently he claimed to be in physical
possession of the said land. The dispute arises between the
O.P.No.2 and the seller of the land, (Ravi Rajak and Others) and
the O.P.No.2 filed a Title Suit No. 86 of 2006 for specific
performance of the contract against Ravi Rajak and Others.
Complainant also filed an application for grant temporary
injunction under Order 39 Rule 1and 2 read with Section 151
C.P.C.
(c) The injunction application was rejected by order dated
18.05.2012 against which O.P.No.2 preferred Misc. Appeal No. 12
of 2012 before the District Judge III Jamshedpur. That by order
dated 10.03.2015 the Appeal Court set aside the order dated
18.05.2012 passed by the Trial Court and directed both the parties
to maintain status-quo and not to take up any construction work or
any other activities which would change the nature and utility of
the said land. It is pertinent to note herein that the Appellate Court
recorded in its judgment dated 18.05.2012 that the parties namely
the Opposite Party No. 2 and Ravi Rajak did not come before the
Court with clean hands since although they claim to be owners of
the scheduled premises but admittedly the same is the leasehold
property of TISCO.
(d) O.P. No.2 has filed the complaint alleging that Petitioner
officials are making some constructions in his land of which he is
in possession. As per the O.P.No.2 the land is a subject matter of
Title Suit and there is a status quo order, therefore making any
such illegal construction is unlawful. O.P.No.2 further alleged that
company officials have committed illegal trespass, threatened,
assaulted and damaged the belongings worth Rs.2 lakh. However,
no specific incidents and or details of the properties damaged and
title documents referred to by the O.P.No.2.
5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners in W.P.(Cr.) No. 341 of 2023 submits that the petitioner No.
1 is working as Senior General Manager in Tata Steel Utilities
Infrastructure Service Limited and petitioner No. 2 is also working as
Liaison in the said company.
6. Mr. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in
W.P.(Cr.) No. 342 of 2023, the petitioner No. 1 is working as Chief of
Security in Tata Steel and petitioner No. 2 is also working as Head of
the land department in the Tata Steel.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by way of
referring the complaint petition submits that the allegations are made
that on the land in question in spite of the injunction granted by the
learned court in Misc. Appeal No. 12 of 2012 with the plot in question,
the petitioners have interfered. He submits that the title suit which is the
subject matter of miscellaneous appeal, these petitioners were not the
parties and to buttress his argument, he refers to Annexure-5, which is
the judgment passed in Misc. Appeal No. 12 of 2012. He further
submits that there is no sale deed in favour of the respondent No. 2,
who is practicing advocate of Jamshedpur. He further submits that the
vendor of the complainant, for the same occurrence has filed an FIR,
being Birsanagar SC/ST P.S. Case No. 03 of 2021, in which, the police
has investigated the matter and submitted the final form saying therein
the lack of evidence. On these grounds, he submits that maliciously the
present case has been filed against the petitioners.
8. Mr. Shravan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No. 2 submits that the injunction was there, in spite of that
the possession was interfered with and the complaint case has rightly
been lodged and the learned court has also taken the cognizance.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that on the
complaint case, the learned court has taken the cognizance.
10. In view of the above submissions of the parties, the court
has gone through the materials available on record and finds that the
complaint case was filed alleging therein that in the Misc. Appeal No.
12 of 2012, there was an order of status quo and the allegations are
made, in spite of that the petitioners have interfered with the possession
of the respondent No. 2. It appears that for the same transaction, the
vendor of the complainant has filed Birsanagar SC/ST P.S. Case No. 03
of 2021, in which, the police has investigated the matter and submitted
the final form saying therein the lack of evidence and the petitioners
were not sent up for trial. In the complaint petition, apart from that,
there is no allegation what these petitioners have done and further these
petitioners in W.P.(Cr.) No. 341 of 2023 are happened to be the officials
of Tata Steel Utilities Infrastructure Service Limited and the petitioners
in W.P.(Cr.) No. 342 of 2023 are the officials of the Tata Steel Limited.
Further the Title Suit has already been dismissed by the judgment dated
15.05.2023, which is the subject matter of the miscellaneous appeal and
even if the argument of learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No. 2 is accepted, if the violation is made, the remedy was elsewhere
and not in the criminal procedings.
11. In view of the above, the entire criminal proceedings
including the order taking cognizance dated 13.03.2023, by which,
cognizance for the offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code
has been taken against the petitioners, in connection with Complaint
Case no. 1284 of 2021, pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, are hereby, quashed.
12. Both these petitions are allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
