Raja Magee @ Raja Maigi vs The State Of Jharkhand And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 3499 Jhar

                                      1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                                ----

Cr.M.P. No. 2465 of 2015

----

1.Raja MaGee @ Raja Maigi

2.Sheo Shankar Das @ Shibu @ Shib Sankar Das @ Sheo Shankar Das .... Petitioners

-- Versus --

The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

       For the Petitioner       :-     Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
       For the State            :-     Mrs. Ruby Pandey, Advocate
       For the O.P.No.2         :-     Mr. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate
                                       ----

3/14.09.2023        Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the

petitioners, Mrs. Ruby Pandey, the learned counsel for the respondent

State and Mr. Zaid Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing for the

O.P.No.2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire

criminal proceeding in connection with Dhanbad P.S.Case No.901 of

2013, corresponding to G.R.Case No.3828 of 2013 including the order

taking cognizance dated 01.07.2015 whereby the cognizance has been

taken under section 323, 379, 341, 504 and 34 of the I.P.C pending

before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

3. The F.I.R was registered alleging therein that on 8.9.2013

at about 07:00 pm, with Raja MaGee and Shiv Shankar Das @ Shibu

called Priest Joesph Luens to Hill Colony near Church and on the request

of Father Joseph Luens went to Hill Colony. There discussion on the

matter of agreement, conversation started and when the informant

stated about the agreement taking some basis for agreement, both

parties became violent, and 2-3 persons who have accompanied with the

petitioner started beating by fists and slaps and also abused me. In the

meantime from the neck of the informant, golden chain worth Rs.

30,000/- was snatched by Raja MaGee and Rs. 800/- kept in the pocket

of the informant was taken away by Shiv Shankar Das. All the aforesaid

persons started abusing and threatening the informant and father Joseph

Luens and threatened that if we complain this matter, the consequences

will be bad. On the basis of aforesaid information, F.I.R. was lodged

under Sections 341 / 323 / 379 / 504 & 34 of I.P.C. and investigation was

to be taken by Shiv Darshan Ram.

4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the petitioner submits that the petitioner no.1 is the Principal of

Calcutta Boys School- an educational institution founded in 1877 by

Calcutta Schools Society, a society registered under the Societies

Registration Act, 1860 and the petitioner no.2 is working for gain as

Office attendant at Calcutta Boys School. He submits that the petitioners

are having unblemished career for teaching in various ICSE schools in

India. He submits that the petitioners have gone to Dhanbad on

08.9.2013 for attending congregation of the methodist youth fellowship

convention and the petitioner no.2 has accompanied him as delegate of

Methodist Church, Sonarpur, Kolkata. He submits that the entire

allegations are based on concocted story. The pendency of the case

before the Labour Court Dhanbad and for negotiation of that case, the

said allegations are made. He submits that there is no case of that before

the Labour court and inspite of that the charge sheet has been submitted

and the learned court has taken cognizance. He submits that even the

particular sections are not made out whereas the cognizance has been

taken. He refers to the case of Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of

Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 668 and refers to

paragraph no.21, which is quoted below:

21. Section 323, IPC prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. Hurt is defined in section 319, IPC as causing bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person. The allegation in the first F.I.R. is that the appellant had beaten up the complainant for which he sustained multiple injuries. Although the complainant alleged that such

incident was witnessed by many persons and that he sustained injuries on his hand, the charge-sheet does neither refer to any eye-witness other than the complainant's wife and son nor to any medical report. The nature of hurt suffered by the complainant in the process is neither reflected from the first F.I.R. nor the charge-sheet. On the contrary, the appellant had the injuries suffered by him treated immediately after the incident. In the counter- affidavit filed by the first respondent (State) in the present proceeding, there is no material worthy of consideration in this behalf except a bald statement that the complainant sustained multiple injuries "in his hand and other body parts". If indeed the complainant's version were to be believed, the I.0. ought to have asked for a medical report to support the same. Completion of investigation within a day in a given case could be appreciated but in the present case it has resulted in more disservice than service to the cause of justice. The situation becomes all the more glaring when in course of this proceeding the parties including the first respondent are unable to apprise us the outcome of the second F.I.R. In any event, we do not find any ring of truth in the prosecution case to allow the proceedings to continue vis-à-vis section 323, IPC.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Zaid Ahmed the learned counsel for

the O.P.No.2 submits that the allegations are there and in view of that

the learned court has rightly taken congnizance.

6. Ms. Ruby Pandey, the learned State counsel submits that

the learned court has taken cognizance pursuant to the charge sheet

submitted by the police.

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

the parties, it appears that the petitioners are happened to be Principal

and Office Attendant of the aforesaid school. It has been disclosed in the

petition that the petitioner no.1 was invited to attend congregation of the

methodist youth fellowship convention to be held at Dhanbad on

08.9.2013 and the petitioner no.2 has accompanied him as a delegate of

the said church. On query by the Court from the learned counsels

appearing for the State as well as the O.P.No.2 as to which nature of the

case is pending before Labour court, they have not been able to reply

about pendency of the case before Labour court and even in the case

diary pendency of a case before Labour court has not been pointed out

by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State.

8. In view of the above, the entire allegations are made out on

the basis of coming to the petitioners for negotiation of the case pending

before the Labour court at Dhanbad, however, that is not supported by

the police in the case diary and the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 is

also not in a position to provide any detail of the case pending before the

Labour court which prima facie suggest that when the petitioners came

to Dhanbad for attending congregation of the methodist youth fellowship

convention with malafide intention the present case is lodged against

them and further the case of the petitioners is covered in view of the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ramesh Chandra

Vaishya(supra).

9. In view of the above facts and the reasons entire criminal

proceeding in connection with Dhanbad P.S.Case No.901 of 2013,

corresponding to G.R.Case No.3828 of 2013 including the order taking

cognizance dated 01.07.2015 pending before the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Dhanbad is quashed.

10. This petition is allowed and disposed of.

11. Pending petition if any also stands disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

SI/