Jharkhand High Court
Ashok Kumar Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 January, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
1 Cr.M.P. No.3012 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3012 of 2022
Ashok Kumar Sinha, aged about 62 years, son of late Kameshwar
Prasad Sinha, resident of IAS Colony, P.O. & P.S.- Danapur, Dist.-
Patna, State- Bihar
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Kamal Kumar Agrawal, aged about 56 years, son of late Prithvi
Chandra Agrawal, resident of Shyam Kutir Apartment, Bariatu
Road, Baraitu, P.O. & P.S.- Bariatu, Dist.- Ranchi
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Saman Ahmad, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Nikhilesh Kr. Chatterjee, Advocate
: Mr. Shiv Prasad, Advocate
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer
for setting aside the entire criminal proceeding including the
order taking cognizance dated 20.06.2022 in connection with
Complaint Case No. 382 of 2019 by which cognizance has been
taken for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 406 of
Indian Penal Code and also to quash the consequential orders of
the said proceeding.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
allegation against the petitioner is that the complainant entered
into a development agreement with the petitioner in respect of his
land through the firm of the petitioner namely Republic Estate
Developers. The complainant executed a power of attorney in
favour of the petitioner on 12.06.2013 which was revoked by him
on 12.07.2014 and the information of revocation was also
intimated to the petitioner as well to the co-accused persons of the
case but in-spite of that the petitioner has sold the flats
constructed over the said land of the complainant.
4. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
that the complainant has suppressed the fact that for the selfsame
occurrence earlier the informant filed Complaint Case No. 2359 of
2014 in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi and the
same upon being referred to police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.,
Bariatu P.S. Case No. 62 of 2015 was registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 420, 406, 468, 120B and 34 of Indian
Penal Code and the allegation made in the said Complaint Case
No. 2359 of 2014 is same as has been made in this complaint and
after investigation of that case, police submitted final form finding
the allegation to be not true and did not send up the petitioner for
trial and the final form has been accepted by the Court after due
notice vide order dated 14.07.2018 in G.R. No. 840 of 2015,
corresponding to Bariatu P.S. Case No. 62 of 2015. Relying upon
the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajeev Kumar Singh vs.
State of Jharkhand reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 890,
paragraph no.7 of which reads as under:-
"7. After going through the contents of both the F.I.Rs,
this Court has no hesitation in holding that both the
F.I.Rs relates to the same occurrence of Rapid Antigen
Test being conducted by Ankur Diagnostic Center
illegally and the petitioner is supplying RAT kits to
Ankur Diagnostic Center on receipt of cash amount.
Thus both the F.I.Rs has been filed in connection with the
same and connected cognizable offences alleged to have
been committed in the course of the same transaction.
Therefore the registration of such multiple FIRs is
nothing but abuse of the process of law. Moreover, the act
of the registration of such successive FIRs on the same set
of facts and allegations will not stand the scrutiny of
Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India."
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
registration of multiple FIRs is nothing but abuse of process of
law.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Krishna Lal
Chawla & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in
MANU/SC/0161/2021, and submits that therein, it has been
reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that it is a
matter of trite law, that suppression of material facts before a
court amounts to abuse of process of the court and shall be dealt
with heavy hand. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal
proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated
20.06.2022 in connection with Complaint Case No. 382 of 2019 be
quashed and set aside.
6. Learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2 on the other hand opposes the prayer to quash the entire
criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated
20.06.2022 in connection with Complaint Case No. 382 of 2019 and
submits that the allegation made in the Complaint Case No. 382 of
2019 is different from the allegation made in the earlier Complaint
Case No. 2359 of 2014 which was subsequently being registered as
Bariatu P.S. Case No. 62 of 2015. Hence, it is submitted that this
criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be
dismissed.
7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials in the record, this Court finds that the
allegations made in this complaint are substantially the same as
that of Complaint Case No. 2359 of 2014, undisputedly, earlier
filed by the complainant and the complainant has suppressed the
material facts from the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Ranchi that for the selfsame allegations, earlier Complaint Case
No. 2359 of 2014 was filed which in the considered opinion of this
Court amounts to abuse of process of law as has been reiterated
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Krishna Lal
Chawla & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Supra). Further, it being a
settled principle of law that a person shall not be subjected to
criminal trial repeatedly for same set of facts and allegation, for
the said reason also, this Court is of the considered view that this
is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the
order taking cognizance dated 20.06.2022 in connection with
Complaint Case No. 382 of 2019 be quashed and set aside.
8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order
taking cognizance dated 20.06.2022 in connection with Complaint
Case No. 382 of 2019 is quashed and set aside.
9. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 10th January, 2024
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
