Jharkhand High Court
Nirmal Kumar Ojha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3498 of 2013
Nirmal Kumar Ojha ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Ramdular Paswan ..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sameer Saurabh, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. P.D. Agarwal, Spl.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Atanu Banjerjee, Advocate.
------
04/ 09.11.2023 Heard Mr. Sameer Saurabh, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, Mr. P.D. Agarwal, learned Spl.P.P. for the State and Mr.
Atanu Banjerjee, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire
criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated
05.03.2013, by which, cognizance for the offence under Section 504 of
the Indian Penal code has been taken against the petitioner, in
connection with Sector-IV SC/ST P.S. Case No. 01 of 2009 [arising out
of C.P. Case No. 562 of 2010], pending in the court of learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro.
3. The present case arises out of C.P. case No. 562/2010 which
case has been registered on the basis of the complaint filed by the
opposite party no.2 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bokaro on 06.03.2009 alleging therein that the complainant/opposite
party no.2/informant is residing with his family members in the house
constructed by him on 05 decimals of land lying in khata no. 47 plot no.
357 and the opposite party no. 2 alleged that the said plot of land was
purchased by him from one Charanjeet Arora.
The O.P. No. 2 / complainant further alleged that on the
date of occurrence i.e. on 01.01.2009 he was repairing one of the
rooms of his house and in the meantime the accused/petitioner
arrived there and started calling him Dushad as to why the
complainant/opposite party No. 2 constructing the room in front of
station Road. The accused persons further told that if the opposite
party no.2 wants to construct the room he would have to pay
Rangdari of Rs. 20,000/- and thereafter, the petitioner demolished
the half constructed room. It is further alleged that some
persons assembled there thereafter, information was also given to
Chandrapura Police station and said information was sent to
Harizan Cell police station sector IV Bokaro Steel City and the
case was also registered as SC/ST P.S. Case No. 01/2009.
It was further alleged that three have already agency the
lapsed but the investigation again has not been taken any steps and
O.P. No. 2 / complainant/informant is under belief that the police
may in connivance with the accused persons/petitioner will not
conduct proper enquiry.
3. Mr. Sameer Saurabh, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the allegation was investigated by the police in
Sector-IV SC/ST P.S. Case No. 01 of 2009 and even the SC/ST Act was
also investigated. He submits that the police has found the case false
against the petitioner. He further submits that on the protest petition, the
learned court has taken the cognizance under Section 504 of the Indian
Penal Code. He further submits that the petitioner has lodged the FIR
against the O.P. No. 2 two days prior of lodging the present case and in
retaliation for the occurrence of 01.01.2009 the present complaint has
been filed. He further submits that this is an abuse of the process of law.
4. Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2
submits that the case is made out against the petitioner and the learned
court after looking into the solemn affirmation and the inquiry
witnesses, has taken the cognizance. He submits that this court may not
interfere in the matter.
5. Mr. Agarwal, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State
submits that the police has investigated the matter and on the protest
petition the learned court has taken the cognizance.
6. In view of the above, it appears that the petitioner has
lodged one case against the O.P. No. 2 two days prior to lodging of the
FIR of the O.P. No. 2. The FIR lodged by the O.P. No. 2 was
investigated by the police and the police has exonerated the petitioner,
however, on the protest petition, the learned court has taken the
cognizance against the petitioner. If any case is being filed in
retaliation, every care is taken by the accused even the ingredients are
tried to be made out, if such things are before the High Court, the High
Court is required to be more careful and things are required to read in
between the lines. This has been recently considered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Haji Iqbal @ Bala through SPOA Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2023) SCC Online (SC) 946.
7. In view of the above and considering the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haji Iqbal @ Bala (Supra), the
entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated
05.03.2013, by which, cognizance for the offence under Section 504 of
the Indian Penal code has been taken against the petitioner, in
connection with Sector-IV SC/ST P.S. Case No. 01 of 2009 [arising out
of C.P. Case No. 562 of 2010], pending in the court of learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro, are hereby, quashed.
8. This petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A., if
any, stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
