Jharkhand High Court
Arjun Pandey @ Guru Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 October, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1346 of 2013
Arjun Pandey @ Guru Pandey ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opp. Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vibhor Mayank, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Achinto Sen, A.P.P.
09/Dated: 12/10/2023
Heard Mr. Vibhor Mayank, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Achinto Sen, learned counsel for the State.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding
including order taking cognizance dated 10.12.2007 in connection with Kudu P.S.
Case No. 64 of 2006, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 310 of 2006, for the offence
under sections 384, 386 and 120B/34 of the I.P.C. and under section 17(1) (ii) of
the C.L.A. Act pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Lohardaga.
3. The F.I.R. has been lodged alleging therein that on 03.07.2006 at
about 10 a.m. the informant got a secret information that Ravindra Ganjhu @
Ravindra Jee and Babu Lal Ganjhu who are the extremists of Communist Party
of India (Maoist) organization are coming to receive levy amount at the house
of Jagua Pahan at village Salgi Nawadi. The informant informed the matter to
his senior officials and on getting the direction the informant proceeded to
village Salgi Nawadi from the Kudu P.S. at about 11 a.m. along with other police
personnel and with Angle Delta 04 Company. At about 12 O'clock the informant
left the vehicle at Salgi More and divided the police party into two parts and
proceeded to surround the house of Jagua Pahan. At about 12.30 p.m. when
both the raiding parties were trying to surround the house of Jagua Pahan then
from the northern door three persons came out and started to run. The police
party chased them and caught one of them while the remaining two persons
managed to escape from there. The apprehended person told his name as Lalu
Kumar of village Hesla Banjhi Tola, P.S.- Chandwa, District - Lathehar and on
interrogation he told the name of the other two persons who managed to
escape from there as Ravindra Ganjhu@Ravindra Jee and Babu Lal Ganjhu.
It was further alleged that thereafter the informant with the help
of the police party entered the house of Jagua Pahan and found three persons
present there who on interrogation told their names as Jagua Pahan, Pradeep
Kumar Upadhyay and Sanyukta Tiwari @Sanju. For their presence there they
could not give satisfactory reply. Thereafter all the three persons were searched
in presence of two independent witnesses namely Shila Oraon and Basudeo
Oraon. In search cash amount of Rs.1,25,000/- kept in a red small bag and one
Nokia Mobile set bearing No. - 9431789540 and a cash amount of Rs. 2610/-
from the pocket of the shirt were recovered from the possession of Pradeep
Kumar Upadhyay. On interrogation Pradeep Kumar Upadhyay told that the levy
amount was demanded from his partner contractor Arjun Pandey @ Guru
Pandey (the petitioner) by maoist extremists Babu Lal Ganjhu and Ravindra
Ganjhu. He further told that Arjun Pandey @ Guru Pandey (the petitioner) had
taken the contract of approach road of Deonad bridge amounting to Rs. 30
Lakhs and it is settled between Arjun Pandey @ Guru Pandey (the petitioner)
and the said two persons namely Ravindra Jee and Babu Lal Ganjhu that a sum
of Rs. 1,60,000/- will be paid as the levy and out of which a sum of Rs.35,000/-
was already paid about two-three months back and on that day he along with
Sanyukta Tiwari @Sanju (the brother-in-law of Guru Pandey) had come to give
the remaining amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- to the said two persons at the house of
Jagua Pahan. He further told that the remaining money which was in his pocket
was for meeting the expenses.
It was further alleged that during the course of such search a
sum of Rs. 8,100/- from the pocket of the pant and a Nokia mobile set bearing
no. 9431894866 were recovered from the possession of Sanyukta Tiwary @
Sanju for which he could not produce any document. It is further alleged that
nothing was recovered from the possession of Jagua Pahan in the search. It is
alleged that two motorcycle standing outside the house of Jagua Pahan out of
which one was Hero Honda C.D. Down bearing registration no. - JH01G-0482
and another Hero Honda Splendor without any registration number were
recovered and the apprehended persons could not produce any document
regarding the said motorcycle nor they could give satisfactory reply. On
interrogation Sanyukta Tiwary @ Sanju told that he along with Pradeep Kumar
Upadhyay had come from Ranchi along with the money demanded as a levy
from the moaist organization and he had come with that money on the saying
of Arjun Pandey @ Guru Pandey.
It was alleged that the apprehended Lalu Kumar Ganjhu on
interrogation told that he along with his brother Ravindra Ganjhu and Babu Lal
Ganjhu had come to receive the levy on Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle which
is without number. It is alleged that Jagua Pahan told that Pradeep Kumar
Upadhyay and Sanyukta Tiwary @ Sanju had come along with Rs. 1,25,000/-
by the another recovered motorcycle. He further told that it was fixed earlier
that the transaction of levy would take place at his house.
On the basis of such self recorded statement of the informant, Kudu
P. S. Case No. 64 OF 2006 dated 03.07.2006 under Sections 384, 386 and
120B/34 of 1.P.C. and Section 17(1)(2) of C.L.A. Act has been instituted against
the petitioner and six other persons.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the
petitioner has come in the confessional statement of the co-accused before the
police. He submits that there is no evidence to suggest that the petitioner is
associate with the extremist organization, Communist Party of India (Moaist).
He submits that co-accused persons have been acquitted by the judgment
dated 23.10.2010. He relied in the case of "Sudesh Kedia Vs. Union of
India" (2021) 4 SCC 704. He submits in view of that entire criminal
proceeding may kindly be quashed.
5. Per contra, Mr. Achinto Sen, learned counsel for the respondent-
State submits that cahragesheet has been submitted. Proclamation of 82/83
Cr.P.C. has been issued in the year, 2007 itself and the petitioner has been
declared absconder. He submits that the said organization is banned.
6. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, it appears that there are allegations against the petitioner that the
petitioner along with others fulfilled the demand of levy. The petitioner had
taken a contract of road of Deonad Bridge amounting to Rs. 30 lakhs and it was
settled between the petitioner and other two persons namely, Ravindra Jee
and Babu Lal Gupta that a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- will be paid as the levy. There
are allegations against the petitioner. Even assuming that some accused
persons have been acquitted in that case the case of the petitioner cannot be
quashed considering that there are allegations and those accused persons
faced the trial and thereafter the said judgment has been passed whereas the
present petitioner has been declared absconder. The judgement relied by the
learned counsel for the petitioner in that case it was held that the
materials/evidence collected by the Investigating Agency in reference to
accusation against the accused concerned in the F.I.R., must be prevail until
contradicted and overcome or disproved by other evidence, and on the face of
it, shows the complicity of such accused in the commission of the stated
offence. It must be good and sufficient on its face to establish a given fact or
the chain of facts constituting the stated offence, unless rebutted or
contradicted.
7. There are allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner has
been declared absconder. No relief can be extended to the petitioner.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A. if any, stands disposed of.
Interim order is vacated.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/
