Jharkhand High Court
Harendra Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand And Another .... ... on 10 January, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr.M.P. No. 4369 of 2019
----
1.Harendra Singh
2.Ganesh Singh @ Ganesh Prasad Singh
3.Nayan Prakash Singh @ Narayan Prakash Singh
.... Petitioners
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties
With
Cr.M.P. No. 1656 of 2020
----
Bipin Bihar Singh .... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioners :- Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, Advocate
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the O.P.No.2 :- Md.Yasir Arafat, Advocate
----
5/10.01.2024 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners, the learned counsels for the respondent States and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2.
2. In both the cases, a common question of facts and law are
involved and in view of that, both these cases are heard together with consent
of the parties.
3. In both these petitions, the prayer is made for quashing of the
entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 15.03.2019 in connection
with SC/ST Case No.196 of 2018 arising out of C.P.Case No.1588 of 2018,
pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge-VI, Dhanbad.
4. The complaint case has been filed alleging therein that earlier
the complainant had filed a Complaint No. 1674/2016 before the Ld. Court of
C.J.M. Dhanbad, however the same was sent to u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and
accordingly on 04.07.2016, the P.S. concern registered a case being Dhanbad
P.S. Case No. 458/2016 under sections 181, 193, 203, 120B, 427, 452, of the
I.P.C. and also u/s 3(i) (v) (viii) (x) (xv) & 2 (ii) of the SC/ST Act and started
investigation and lastly police submitted final report as untrue thereafter the
Ld. Court directed the office clerk for issuing a notice upon the informant. After
receiving notice the informant on 28.04.2018 filed a protest petition and
subsequently same has been numbered as C.P. case no. 1588/18 wherein apart
from the facts narrated above it has been further stated been that the
complainant has retired from service and has joined Dhanbad Association as an
Advocate and has Bar been practising as a regular member of Dhanbad Bar
Association belongs to Schedule Tribe community and (GOND). That Harendra
Singh and Nayan Prakash Singh and other family members have been tirelessly
trying to oust the complainant from his house to grab the house and adjacent
land of the complainant. That the accused persons have put the petitioner
(complainant) to several litigations and attacked on various ways. That
Harendra Singh, Nayan Prakash Singh and Ganesh Singh had installed
explosive substance on the Gate of the complainant, demolished a portion of
boundary wall, abused, caused hurt, humiliated on various ways to the
knowledge of local Administration and Court. That W/A (N.B.) has been issued
against accused No. petitioners from the Learned Court of Sri P. Chandra. J. M.
Ist Class, Dhanbad under sections 323, 451, 506, 120B I.P.C. and Sec. 3 (i) (x)
S. C/ S. T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and their Anticipatory Bail Application
has also been rejected from Sessions Court. That in order to take vengeance
and to feed their grudge they have managed and motivated Bipin Bihari Singh
to file false and fabricated cases against the complainant, his Advocate brother
Suresh Prasad his son Sarve Nath Gond (who is Bank Employee in U. P.) and
witness of complainant Paras Nath Singh. That accused No. 4 knowingly stated
before C.J.M. Dhanbad on oath as true that which was false and thereby
caused the Learned Court to use powers. The accused No. 4 Bipin Bihari Singh
fabricated false evidence and gave false information respecting an offence
which was never committed. That the accused petitioners have managed their
own men Bipin Bihari Singh to file C. P. Case No. 1457/2016 just to humiliate
and put to severe harassment as well as to tarnish the image of the
complainant in the locality. on 19.6.2016 at about 9 A. M. That the complainant
was inside his Campus and was discussing with Suresh Prasad and others
about repairing of the damaged boundary wall which was damaged and
demolished at the instance of accused petitioners earlier. That all of sudden the
accused persons trespassed into the premises of the complainant, having made
preparation for causing hurt, assault, humiliation etc. Harendra Singh
thundered "SALA ACHHHUT TUM PAR BIPIN NE CASE KIYA PHIR BHI BAHAR
HAI". That Nayan Prakash Singh and Ganesh Pd. Singh said "SALA ACHHUT
GHAR DWAR CHHOR KAR BHAGO NAHIN TO GOONDA SE SAB KO MARWA
DENGE". That all the accused broke out the Flower Gamlas and caused
mischief. Harendra Singh caught hand of the complainant and all accused
mishandled the old complainant. That Suresh Prasad intervened to save the
complainant when Bipin Bihari Singh told "SALE ACHHUT ADIWSI HARENDRA
BABU KE SAMNE SAR UTHATA HAI". That the accused persons started
shouting, abusing, threatening the complainant within Public view. Several
persons reached there and the accused left the place. That the accused
persons have committed serious offences like terrorists. That the complainant
had been to P. S. where he was not given any priority and directed to file case
in court hence the complaint.
5. Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners submits that the said complaint case was sent by the
learned court under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C for registration of the F.I.R and
investigation and pursuant to that, Dhanbad P.S. Case No.458 of 2016 was
registered and the police has investigated the matter and final form was
submitted whereby it was pointed out that the case is false in nature. He
submits that on the protest petition the learned court has been pleased to take
cognizance. He further submits that no case is made out and there is land
dispute between the parties and for that, two title suits are going on before the
learned competent court at Dhanbad being Title Suit No.274 of 2010 and Title
Suit No.275 of 2010 which are still pending. The title suit has been instituted by
Ashrafi Hospital Private Limited and these petitioners are the partners of the
said hospital. He submits that even the allegations are made that filthy
language is used and that was not in public view. He submits that earlier also
the C.P.Case No.402 of 2015 was filed by the O.P.No.2 against the petitioners
which was quashed by this Court by judgment dated 04.09.2023 in Cr.M.P.
No.2596 of 2022. On these grounds he submits that the entire criminal
proceeding may kindly be quashed.
6. The learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 submits that they are
trying to grab the land of the O.P.No.2 and in view of that, the case is made
out. He submits that in the public premise the filthy language is used and in
view of that, section under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is
attracted. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding
may not be quashed.
7. The Court finds that admittedly the complaint case being
Complaint Case No.1588 of 2018 was filed which was sent by the learned court
under section 156(3) Cr.PC for registration and investigation and pursuant to
that, Dhanbad P.S. Case No.458 of 2016 was registered. The police submitted
final form saying that the case is false in nature and on protest petition, the
learned court has taken cognizance. It is admitted position that two title suits
are going on for the land dispute in question being Title Suit No.274 of 2010
and Title Suit No.275 of 2010 and those title suits are pending. In the protest
petition also the averment is made that occurrence took place in the house of
the O.P.No.2 and if such averment is there, it was not within the purview of
'public view' and further it is not stated that the petitioners are not belonging to
the caste of O.P.No.2 and if such situation is there, the case of the petitioners is
attracted in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of "Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh",
(2008) 12 SCC 531. Further, if the civil case is there and the dispute is
arising out of land dispute, the case of the petitioner is further covered in light
of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
"Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand", (2020) 10 SCC 710, and one of
the case filed by the O.P.No.2 in C.P.Case No.402 of 2015 as SC/ST Dhanbad
Case No.2 of 2012 was quashed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P.
No.2596 of 2022 by the judgment dated 04.09.2023. It appears that
maliciously the present case has been filed.
8. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding including the order
dated 15.03.2019 in connection with SC/ST Case No.196 of 2018 arising out of
C.P.Case No.1588 of 2018, pending in the court of learned Additional District
Judge-VI, Dhanbad is quashed.
9. Both these petitions stand allowed and disposed.
10. Pending petition if any also stands disposed of accordingly.
11. It is made clear that pending suits shall be decided in
accordance with law without prejudice to this order.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/,
