Jharkhand High Court
Sitaram Snehi vs State Of Jharkhand on 28 November, 2023
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 856 of 2017
1. Sitaram Snehi
2. Mahadeo Ram @ Mahdeo Mahto
3. Ashok Kumar
4. Kapildeo Pandey @ Kapildeo Tiwari
5. Ram Lakhan Pandey
6. Jagmohan Prasad
7. Umesh Mahto @ Uday Prasad @ Dara
8. Indradeo Prasad @ Indradeo Mahto ..... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Satyendra Kumar ..... ... Opposite Parties
With
Cr.M.P. No. 863 of 2017
Keshar Lal ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.State of Jharkhand
2. Satyendra Kumar ..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioners :Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
(in Cr.M.P. N0.863 of 2017)
Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate
(in Cr.M.P. No.856/2017)
For the State : Mrs. Snehlika Bhagat, A.P.P.
(in Cr.M.P. No. 856/2017)
Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, A.P.P.
(in Cr.M.P. No. 863/2017)
------
05/ 28.11.2023 In both the petitions common question of law and
similar complaint as well as cognizance order are under challenge
that is why both the petitions are being heard together with the
consent of the parties.
2. On 24.08.2023 nobody responded on behalf of the
O.P.No.2 and with a view to provide one more opportunity to the
O.P. No.2 the matters were adjourned and it was observed that on
the next date if the O.P. No.2 will not appear, the matters will be
decided in absence of O.P. No.2. Today, on repeated calls, nobody
responded on behalf of the O.P. No.2. Accordingly, these matters
are being heard in absence of the O.P. No.2.
3. Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for
the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 863 of 2017 and Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha,
learned counsel for the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 856 of 2017 and
Snehlika Bhagat and Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, learned counsels for the
State in respective cases.
4. Both the petitions have been filed for quashing the
entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance
dated 02.02.2017 passed in connection with Sadar (Muffasil) P.S.
Case No. 1262 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 4558 of 2015
(T.R. No. 3154/2017) pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Hazaribagh.
5. The O.P. No.2 has filed the complaint case alleging therein
that on 01.11.2015 at around 4.00 p.m. he went over the land
under khata no.7 plot no.86 in village Chano within Muffasil police
station, which was purchased in the name of his wife, and the
construction of godown was going on. In the meantime, the
neighbours of the aforesaid land namely Umesh Mahto alias Dara
son of Narayan Mahto, Ashok Mahto son of Sita Ram Mahto, Kapil
Pandey, Ram Lakhan Pandey, both sons of Yamuna Prasad, Sita
Ram Snehi son of Bhola Mahto, Sukhdeo Mahto, Mahadeo Mahto,
both sons of Gopal Mahto, Keshar Lal son of Kuldeep Sahay
(petitioner), Jagmohan Prasad, father's name not known, all
residents of village Rola, PS-Muffassil, Indradeo Mahto son of
Mohanty Mahto, resident of village Silwar Khurd, PS-Muffassil,
Hazaribagh, along with 20-25 unknown persons together having
lathi, Danda and Sword came running over near the informant and
started abusing and also started demolishing the boundary wall
constructed by the informant.
It is further alleged that on the protest made by the
informant, the accused persons, namely, Umesh Mahto and Ram
Lakhan Pandey assaulted him by lathi due to which the informant
sustained serious injury over his left wrist and chest. The accused
persons were saying to kill him. In the meantime, co-accused
Ashok Mahto and Mahadeo Mahto took out Rs. 12,000/- from the
pocket of the informant.
It is alleged that on raising hulla for rescue, the co-
villagers and neighbours came running there, but in the meantime
two motorcycles kept inside the boundary wall bearing registration
no. JH-02Q-7415 (Hero Honda Passion[Pro]) and JH-02D-8645 TVS
Centro were taken by the co-accused Jagmohan Prasad and Kapil
Pandey, who fled away with the aforesaid motorcycles.
It is also alleged that while accused persons were fleeing
away, the co-accused, Sita Ram Snehi and Keshar Lal were saying
by abusing that Rupees one lakh has to be paid as Rangdari
otherwise the informant will be buried in the land of the informant
and thereafter all the accused persons fled away.
It is alleged that neighbours brought the informant for
treatment at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh, where his statements has
been recorded in presence of his own brother Birbal Prasad Mahto,
whose signature has also been made on the fardbeyan.
6. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 863 of 2017 submits that the petitioner-
Keshar Lal was one of the witness of the case in which the
informant of the present case namely, Satyendra Kumar has been
made accused by co-accused Sita Ram Snehi i.e. Sadar (Muffasil)
P.S. Case No. 752 of 2013. He submits that the there is land
dispute between the parties that is why a case being Title Suit No.
39 of 2013 is already pending before the Civil Court at Dhanbad.
He further submits that the informant of the present case was
already taken into custody on 01.11.2015 in the case lodged by
one Sita Ram Snehi being Sadar (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 752 of
2013. By way of drawing attention of the Court to station diary at
serial no. 22 he submits that at 5.00 P.M. informant was taken into
custody and by way of referring station diary at serial no. 26 he
submits that the informant was released at 8.15 p.m. He further
submits that allegation is made for demand of money at 4 P.M.
To buttress this argument he draws the attention of the court to
station diary annexed with the petition obtained through R.T.I. He
further submits that this fact has been admitted in para 21 page 8
of the counter-affidavit filed in Cr.M.P. No. 863 of 2017. On these
grounds, he submits that if any case is made out that is civil in
nature and the case has been maliciously registered against the
petitioners.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that
the case is made out. There are allegations of assault and demand
of money and in view of that the learned court has taken
cognizance. He submits that this is not a case to exercise power
under section 482 of Cr.P.C.
8. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for
the parties, the Court has gone through the documents on record
and contents of F.I.R. In the contents of F.I.R. it is disclosed that
the occurrence took place on 01.11.2015. The documents brought
on record in form of station diary, suggest that informant was taken
into custody in connection with Sadar (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 752
of 2013 at 17 hours and on recall he was released with warning at
20.15 hours and further at the time of arrest he has not reported
any complain of assault. However the case has been registered on
02.11.2015 for the occurrence of 01.11.2015. It appears that on
01.11.2015 the informant of the present case was already in
custody which suggests that maliciously the present case has been
filed against the petitioners. Further the matter relates to land
dispute for that Title Suit No. 39 of 2013 is already going on. In
the above back ground if any case is made out that is civil in nature
and criminal colour has been given by the informant who is himself
an accused in Sadar (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 752 of 2013 and he
was in custody on 01.11.2015. No complaint is made with regard to
any assault or demand of money before the police or before any
competent court against the petitioners. The case of the petitioners
are covered in the light of judgment in the case of State of
Haryana and others V. Bhajan Lal and others" 1992 Supp.
(1) SCC 335 .
9. In view of facts, reasons and analysis, the entire
criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated
02.02.2017 passed in connection with Sadar (Muffasil) P.S. Case
No. 1262 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 4558 of 2015 (T.R.
No. 3154/2017) pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Hazaribagh, is hereby quashed.
10. Interim orders passed in respective cases are vacated.
11. Both these criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed
and disposed of. Pending interlocutory application also stands
disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
satyarthi/-
