Jharkhand High Court
Sheo Shankar Pathak S/O Late Chun Chun ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 January, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) No. 550 of 2023
----
Sheo Shankar Pathak S/o Late Chun Chun Pathak, R/o
Gosaintola, Pathakpuri, PO Phulwari, PS Patliputra, District
Patna, Bihar.
... Petitioner
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. M/s Lata Coloniser Pvt. Ltd through its Managing Director
Harendra Singh S/o Late Girija Singh, at present R/o Uttam
Niwas, Harmu Housing Colony, PO Harmu, PS Argora, Dist.
Ranchi, Jharkhand; Permanent R/o 30/C, Anandpuri, Boring
Canal Road, PO PS Patliputra, Dist. Patna, Bihar;
3. Mr. Pintu Kumar, the Investigating Officer, Argora Police
Station, Ranchi.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Sharad Kaushal, AC to AAG III
Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
----
8/ 10.01.2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the
State and learned counsel appearing for the respondents Nos.2 and 3.
2. Petitioner has challenged the entire criminal proceeding in
connection with the First Information Report registered as Argora Police
Station Case No. 223 of 2018, registered for offences under Sections 406,
420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. He initially prayed
for an adjournment, but since the case is under the heading for "Final
Disposal", after going through the complaint petition and the records, I do not
feel it proper to grant any adjournment.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.M. Datta versus
State of Gujarat & Another reported in (2001) 7 SCC 659 at paragraph 9
thereof, while concurring with the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]
at paragraph 103 thereof, has held that Criminal proceedings, in the normal
course of events ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage, unless the same
amounts to an abuse of the process of law. It has been further held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that there cannot possibly be any guiding factor as to
which investigation ought to be scuttled at the initial stages and investigations
which ought not to be so scuttled. The first information report needs to be
considered and if the answer is found on a perusal thereof which leads to
disclosure of an offence even broadly, law courts are barred from usurping the
jurisdiction of the police since the two organs of the State operate in two
specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere.
Paragraph 9 of the judgment in the case of S.M. Datta (supra) reads as
under: -
"9. We respectfully record our concurrence therewith.
Criminal proceedings, in the normal course of events ought
not to be scuttled at the initial stage, unless the same
amounts to an abuse of the process of law. In the normal
course of events thus, quashing of a complaint should
rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule.
The genuineness of the averments in the FIR cannot
possible be gone into and the document shall have to be
read as a whole so as to decipher the intent of the maker
thereof. It is not a document which requires decision with
exactitude, neither is it a document which equires
mathematical accuracy and nicety, but the same should be
able to communicate or indicative of disclosure of an
offence broadly and in the event the said test stands
satisfied, the question relating to the quashing of a
complaint would not arise. It is in this context, however, one
feature ought to be noticed at this juncture that there cannot
possibly be any guiding factor as to which investigation
ought to be scuttled at the initial stages and investigations
which ought not to be so scuttled. The first information
report needs to be considered and if the answer is found on
a perusal thereof which leads to disclosure of an offence
even broadly, law courts are barred from usurping the
jurisdiction of the police since the two organs of the State
operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought
not to tread over the other sphere."
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana
versus Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 at paragraph 103
thereof has held as under: -
"103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the
power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be
exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that
too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be
justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR
or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent
power do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to
act according to its whim or caprice."
6. Thus from the reading of the above observations of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is to the
effect that if from bare perusal of complaint, an offence is made out, criminal
proceeding cannot be throttled at the very initial stage.
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid proposition of law, I have gone
through the complaint petition. Be it noted that a complaint petition was filed,
which was sent under Section 156(3) for investigation after registering a First
Information Report. In the complaint petition, the allegation is that the
petitioner, who is accused person, entered into a Development Agreement
with the complainant. After entering into the Development Agreement, the land
was found to be disputed. There is a specific averment in the complaint
petition that after settlement of the dispute in relation to the land, the accused
person has entered into another Development Agreement with another builder,
even though he had taken huge sum from the complainant. It is necessary to
quote paragraph 7 of the complaint petition, which reads as under: -
7. That in the month of May 2015 the complainant came to
know this better troth from witness no.1 that the accused
persons have given their land for development to one Binod
Kumar without cancellation of agreement of complainant
and without refunding the money of complainant.
8. Prima facie, there are some element, which makes out some
offence. The allegation, which has been made in the complaint needs to be
investigated, thus, the Magistrate has referred the matter under Section 156(3)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation after registering a First
Information Report. I find no ground to quash the First Information Report.
9. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending interlocutory
applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-03
