Anil Kumar Mishra Son Of Shri Madan Mohan ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 10305 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Anil Kumar Mishra Son Of Shri Madan Mohan ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 November, 2024

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        Cr.M.P. No. 642 of 2016
       Anil Kumar Mishra son of Shri Madan Mohan Mishra, resident of
       Niwaranpur, P.O.+ P.S.- Doranda, District- Ranchi
                                                      ... ...       Petitioner
                                 -Versus-
       1. The State of Jharkhand
       2. Dharmshila Devi wife of Shri Surendra Kumar Rai, resident of
          Quarter No. DT 1366, Dam Side Dhurwa, H.E.C. Colony, P.O-
          Dhurwa, P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi ...         ... Opp. Parties
                                 ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate For the Opp. Party No. 2 : Mr. Shankar Lal Agarwal, Advocate : Ms. Ayushi, Advocate

---

11/11.11.2024

1. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 01.02.2016 alongwith the entire criminal proceedings of the case, so far the petitioner is concerned, passed by the learned court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 2102 of 2015 whereby cognizance of the offence under Section 354(B) of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner and others. Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the entire criminal proceedings has submitted that the records of the case will reveal that the case arises out of malicious prosecution. He has submitted that there are repeated cases filed one after another relating to the same incident and the present case has been filed by Dharmshila Devi, wife of Surendra Kumar Rai. The earlier case being Complaint Case No. 111 of 2015 was filed by Surendra Kumar Rai, husband of Dharmshila Devi in which 23 persons were made opposite parties and apart from that, it was also mentioned in the Complaint that there were 100 to 150 unknown accused persons. The learned counsel submits that the Complaint Case No. 111 of 2015 was sent to the concerned police station for investigation by the police and was numbered as Sadar P.S. Case No.91/2015 dated 19.09.2015 (G.R. No. 538 of 2015)

and has been ultimately quashed by this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. He has further submitted that upon investigation, Final Form was submitted by the police in the said case, but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa vide order dated 09.12.2016 had differed with the Final Form and had taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 452, 454, 354(B), 387, 406, 420, 467, 468, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The criminal case was ultimately quashed by this Hon'ble Court in Cr.M.P. No. 241 of 2017 on 05.04.2022.

3. Upon perusal of the said order passed in Cr.M.P. No. 241 of 2017, it is apparent that there were altogether 17 petitioners, but the present petitioner was not a party.

4. At this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the order was passed in Cr.M.P. 241 of 2017 dated 05.04.2022, the criminal case has already been dropped.

5. The learned counsel further submits that the present Complainant- Dharmshila Devi had filed another complaint case which was Complaint Case No. 426 of 2017 and the entire criminal proceeding of the said Complaint Case including summoning order dated 18.02.2022 has also been quashed by this Court vide order dated 05.09.2023 passed in Cr.M.P. No.2119 of 2022. However, the petitioner is not a party in Cr.M.P. No.2119 of 2022 also. The learned counsel submits that in the meantime, Complaint Case No. 2102 of 2015 was filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 against the petitioner and other accused persons.

6. The learned counsel submits that arising out of the same incident with slightly different version, different cases have been filed. The other two cases have already been quashed by this Court and the present case has been filed with a malafide intent and it is a clear case of malicious prosecution for almost similar set of allegations with little bit difference. The Opposite Party No. 2 has been filing cases either herself or through her husband. The learned counsel submits that essentially the dispute is in connection with one school and the

Opposite Party No. 2 is acting in a malicious manner and filing criminal cases giving the dispute of criminal colour. The learned counsel has referred to the three cases and claimed that they arise out of the same incident. The learned counsel has relied upon the following judgment:-

(i)     (1988) 1 SCC 692 Paragraph 7
(ii)    (2002) 3 SCC 89 paragraphs 6 and 8

(iii) 2022 SCC Online Del 245 Paragraphs 13, 14 & 15

(iv) (2020) 13 SCC 435 paragraphs 10 to 16

(v) 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1582 paragraph 23

(vi) 2023 SCC OnLine SC 948

(vii) 2023 SCC Online SC 950

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that aforesaid judgments deal with general principle of law with regard to quashing of criminal cases. He has submitted that the celebrated judgment of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal has been consistently followed in the case of malicious prosecution. It has been held that in an appropriate case falling under one or the other category mentioned therein, it is the duty of the High Court to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse to the process of law. He has also submitted that in a case of malicious prosecution, there is no point saying that the person should face the trial and get acquittal. He has also submitted that there is no point saying that the matter has to be considered at the stage of discharge. The learned counsel has submitted that on the face of allegations made in the three complaint petitions, it is apparent that there are almost similar allegations for which three different cases have been filed one after another only to harass the petitioner.

8. The learned counsel thereafter has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2020) 13 SCC 435 Paragraphs 10 to 16 and submits that the said judgment specifically deals with a case of malicious prosecution. The learned counsel further referred to the judgment reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC

1582 paragraph 23; 2023 SCC OnLine SC 948 and 2023 SCC Online SC 950 to submit that it is the duty of the court to protect its citizens from vexatious proceedings. The learned counsel submits that considering the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, the entire criminal proceeding including the order on cognizance be set aside.

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 (the complainant) has submitted that at the stage of challenge to the order taken on cognizance, the allegations made in the complaint and the inquiry witnesses are required to be taken into consideration. He has also submitted that so far as the complainant is concerned, the present case is the only case which has been filed by her in which the petitioner is an accused person.

10. The learned counsel submits that so far as the complaint case No. 426 of 2017 filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 is concerned, the same was lodged for the offence under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and has been quashed in Cr.M.P. No. 2119 of 2022, but in the said case, the present petitioner was not a party and the said case was not lodged against the present petitioner.

11. With respect to the other complaint case which was numbered as G.R. Case No. 538 of 2015, the learned counsel submits that the said case was quashed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 241 of 2017 in which the husband of Opposite Party No. 2 was the complainant. In the said case, the present petitioner was an accused, but he is not a party in Cr.M.P. 241 of 2017.

12. The learned counsel has further submitted that the complainant of the present case is required to be cross-examined with respect to the allegations made in the other cases and the allegations made in the other complaint cases are not identical. He has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 and (1988) 4 SCC 655 paragraph 15.

13. He has submitted that there are serious allegations made against the petitioner and the complaint case may not be quashed. He has also submitted that the petitioner had not even appeared before the learned court and the matter has remained pending before this Court since 2016.

Rejoinder Argument on behalf of the Petitioner

14. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was an interim order in favour of the petitioner and therefore, there was no occasion for petitioner to participate in the proceedings. He submits that the present case is a fit case to quash the entire proceeding including the order taking cognizance of the case to prevent the abuse of process of law at the hand of the Opposite Party No. 2.

15. Arguments Concluded.

16. Post this case on 02nd January, 2025 for Judgment.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Rakesh/-