Jharkhand High Court
Awdhesh Kumar Jaiswal vs The State Of Jharkhand And Another on 16 September, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr.M.P. No. 1791 of 2013
----
1.Awdhesh Kumar Jaiswal
2.Veena Devi
3.Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal .... Petitioners
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioners :- Mr. Pradeep Kumar Prasad, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. P.D. Agarwal, Spl.P.P.
----
6/16.09.2023 On repeated call, nobody has responded on behalf of the
O.P.No.2. Identical was the situation on 21.06.2022. In view of that, this
petition is being heard in absence of the O.P.No.2.
2. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Prasad the learned counsel for
the petitioners and Mr. P.D.Agarwal, the learned Special Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of the respondent State.
3. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire
criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated
25.04.2012 in connection with Complaint Case No.668 of 2011, T.R.
No.874 of 2012 under sections 323, 406, 420, 467, 468/34, 120B of the
IPC and section 3(i)(x) of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, pending in the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Hazaribagh.
4. The complaint case was registered alleging therein that the
complaint case has been instituted on the basis of the complaint petition
of Ranjeet Kumar alleging the he joined the company of Chandan Kumar
Jaiswal which was running in the name and style of Jaishri Veena
Marketing and Infrastructure Private Limited and the complainant
appointed many staff for the company. It has further been stated that
the said staff collected a sum of Rs.21,50,000/- from various persons and
a panchayati was held at K.K. Colliery temple and the accused persons
assured that they would pay the entire amount and accordingly a
panchnama was prepared. It has also been alleged that on 20.05.2011
when the complainant went to the house of the accused person for
repayment and the accused persons assaulted him and he was somehow
saved by his father. It has been alleged that the accused persons
intentionally cheated a sum of Rs.21,50,000/-.
5. Mr. Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the main allegation is against Chandan Kumar who happened to be
son of the petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 is mother and petitioner
no.3 is brother of Chandan Kumar. He submits that there is some
transaction with Chandan Kumar with regard to business agreement and
the dispute arose between the informant and Chandan Kumar and for
that, the complaint case has been filed. He further submits that in S.A
also nothing has been stated against these petitioners. He further
submits that even the case has been registered under SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989, malafidely.
6. Mr. Agarwal, the learned counsel for the respondent State
submits that it appears that the learned court has taken cognizance
pursuant to the complaint case.
7. In view of submission of the learned counsels appearing on
behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the contents of the
complaint petition and finds that so far these petitioners are concerned,
there is no allegation and only general and omnibus allegations are there
in the S.A and against these petitioners nothing has been stated by the
complainant. The petitioners are the father, mother and brother of
Chandan Kumar against whom the allegations are made by the
complainant. It appears that so far as these three petitioners are
concerned, the case has been malafidely filed. Further the Court finds
that the allegations with regard to SC/ST Act is concerned, has not
occurred in any public view there is no averment in the complaint petition
that petitioners are not belonging to the caste of the complainant and in
view of that, the case of the petitioners are fully covered by the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah
v. State of A.P., (2008) 12 SCC 531.
8. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding including the order
taking cognizance dated 25.04.2012 in connection with Complaint Case
No.668 of 2011, T.R. No.874 of 2012, pending in the court of Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh is quashed.
9. This petition is allowed in the above terms and disposed of.
10. It is made clear that this Court has not interfered with
regard to the complaint case or the order taking cognizance so far as
said Chandan Kumar is concerned.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/,
