Jharkhand High Court
Pradeep Kumar Rajak vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 January, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1 Cr.M.P. No. 102 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 102 of 2018
1. Pradeep Kumar Rajak
2. Smt. Sharda Devi @ Sharada Devi
3. Sahdeo Rajak ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Surendra Kumar Ojha ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, A.P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate
-----
07/29.01.2024 Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Atanu
Banerjee, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal
proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 07.09.2017 in
connection with C.P. Case No.1081 of 2017, pending in the Court of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad.
3. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the complainant-
opposite party no.2 has constructed his house at Aayush Bihar where he
resides since last several years. The complainant is a Doctor and is
employed in Raj Hospital, Ranchi and his wife is a Teacher in Dhanbad
Public School. The complainant's son Ankit Ojha is pursuing his studies. On
20.04.2017, the accused No.2 Sharda Devi had thrown some flour which
was smelling bad and which was seen by the wife of the complainant and
when the complainant came home, his wife informed about the occurrence.
The complainant on 21.04.2017 at 05:30 hours enquired from accused No.1
regarding the occurrence as to why his wife had thrown the rotten flour in
their house on which it is stated that the accused persons started abusing
him and assaulted him with lathi and stick. When the wife and son of the
complainant tried to intervene, they were also abused. Thereafter, being
apprehensive, they entered into their house.
4. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance under Section 323,
341, 451 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code for the allegation arising out of
neighbour dispute. He submits that the allegations are made that petitioner
no.2 has thrown rotten wheat flour in the premises of the complainant. He
further submits that for that issue, the matter was reported to the police
and the police has registered the case being Seraidhella Police Station Non
Fir No.07/2017, dated 22.04.2017 under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. He also
submits that the direction was issued to maintain peace and pursuant to
that, peace has been maintained by both the sides. He further submits that
earlier the case was lodged by the petitioners against the complainant in
which charge-sheet has been submitted against him, however, later on the
petitioners did not pursue the said case. He also submits that for the same
occurrence, the present complaint case has been filed, which was the
subject matter in the case under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. He submits that if
the allegations are there of trivial issue, particularly under Section 95 of the
Indian Penal Code, the Court may quash the entire criminal proceeding. To
buttress this argument, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of N.S. Madhanagopal and another v. K.
Lalitha, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2030. Paragraphs 6 and 13 of
the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:
"6. Thus, all that has been averred in the complaint is
that the appellant Madanagopal hurled unparliamentary
words towards the complainant.
13. Taking cognizance of an offence under
Section 190(1) of the Cr. P.C. and issue of process under
Section 204 are judicial functions and require a judicious
approach. This is a proposition not only based on sound
logic but is also based on fundamental principles of justice,
as a person against whom no offence is disclosed cannot
be put to any harassment by the issue of process. Issuance
of process must be preceded by an application of judicial
mind to the material before the court to determine if there
is ground for proceedings against the accused. When the
allegations made in the complaint are found to be too
vague and general without giving any material particulars
of the offence alleged against the accused then the order
of the Magistrate issuing process on the basis of the
complaint would not be justified as there must be material
prima facie, for issuance of process. We have our own
doubts whether even the verification of the original
complainant on oath was recorded before taking
cognizance and issuing process."
Relying on the above judgment, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the case of the petitioners is fully covered.
5. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that if the
allegation is of trivial nature and for that the case was already registered,
considering that the Court may quash the entire criminal proceeding. He
further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Sunil Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another ,
reported in (2023) 8 SCC 481. Paragraph 6 of the said judgment is quoted
hereinbelow:
"6. Considering the nature of allegations against the
appellant which are of very trivial nature and considering
the fact that there is no progress made in the proceedings
since the charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in
the year 2015, the Court is of the opinion that continuing
the proceedings would be a persecution and harassment to
the appellant. As such a petty incident which took place in
their office should have been resolved by the parties on
that day itself, instead of stretching it so far."
Relying on the above judgment, Mr. Das submits that for petty
incident, the case has been registered and in view of that, the entire
criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.
6. The said argument is being resisted by Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned
counsel for opposite party no.2 and he submits that the learned Court has
rightly taken cognizance. He further submits that there are allegations,
which have been supported in the solemn affirmation by the complainant.
He also submits that the case under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. and the present
complaint case are on different footing and in view of that, no case of
interference is made out. He submits that the High Courts are restraining in
passing such order in such type of cases.
7. Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, learned counsel for the State submits that the
case was filed and pursuant to that, the learned Court has been pleased to
take cognizance.
8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners and opposite party no.2 are
neighbour. Earlier, the case was filed by the petitioners against the
complainant-opposite party no.2, in which, charge-sheet has been
submitted against the complainant, however, the petitioner did not pursue
that matter. It is further established from the documents on record that
Seraidhella Police Station Non FIR No.07/2017 was registered for the same
occurrence and the proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. was lodged, in
which, the parties were directed to maintain peace.
9. The allegation in the complaint case is made that accused no.2 has
thrown rotten wheat flour in the premises at 05:30 a.m. and the petitioners
have tried to enter the house at 05:30 a.m. For such an allegation, the
proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. was already lodged. It is
unexpected that for such trivial issue, anybody can try to enter into the
house of neighbour at 05:30 a.m. and the allegations are made to that
effect. In view of the above position, it is crystal clear that for a petty
incident which took place between two neighbours and that has been
resolved in view of proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. as peace was
maintained between the parties. The case of the petitioners is covered in
view of the judgments passed in the cases of N.S. Madhanagopal and Sunil
Kumar (supra).
10. The argument of Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel for opposite
party no.2 is not in dispute. There is no doubt that if the case is made
out, the High Court should not interfere in quashing of the entire
criminal proceeding, however, if the case like this, which has been
narrated hereinabove, is allowed to continue, that will amount to abuse of
process of law.
11. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal
proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 07.09.2017 in
connection with C.P. Case No.1081 of 2017, pending in the Court of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad are quashed.
12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.
13. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, is vacated.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
