Shakti Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 8800 Jhar

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 8800 Jhar
Judgement Date : 4 September, 2024

Jharkhand High Court

Shakti Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 September, 2024

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           Cr.M.P. No.2275 of 2018
                                      ------

Shakti Kumar, aged about 40 years, son of Surendra Prasad, resident of C-9/S, Phase-9, Adarsh Nagar, Sonari, P.O. & P.S. Sonari, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum.

                                                               ...             Petitioner
                                             Versus
            1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Sanjit Kumar Singh, son of Raghubir Prasad Singh proprietor of Bhargav Enterprises, resident of Road No.5, Post Office Road, Krishna Nagar, Gaur Basti, Mango, P.O. & P.S. Mango, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum ... Opposite Parties

------

             For the Petitioner         : Mr. Anish Mishra, Advocate
             For the State              : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P.
             For the O.P. No.2          : Mr. Rohit Agarwal, Advocate
                                               ------
                                         PRESENT
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY


By the Court:-     Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings including the order

dated 12.06.2018 passed in C-1 Case No.3054 of 2017 by the learned Judicial

Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur whereby and where under the learned judicial

Magistrate found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections

406, 420, 506 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner posing

himself as the proprietor of Santawana Syndicate Cash Construction played

deception since the beginning and cheated the complainant by making him

transfer Rs.18,00,000/- that includes the margin money of Rs.5,00,000/- which

was deposited by the complainant with the Bank and the remaining

Rs.13,00,000/- being the loan granted to the complainant for purchase of a road

roller. The complainant did not supply any road roller and instead created

some forged documents and criminally intimidated the complainant.

4. On the basis of the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and the

statement of enquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,

Jamshedpur found prima facie case for the said offences and ordered for issue of

summons.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against

the petitioner are false. The petitioner is a chartered accountant practicing in

Jamshedpur. The co-accused No.1 has been shown to be of Kolkata. The

petitioner is not having any connection with the co-accused No.1 of the

complaint and the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Hence, it is submitted

that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P. be allowed.

6. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the

opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer as prayed

for by the petitioner and submits that the undisputed fact remains that the

allegations made against the petitioner if are considered to be true in their

entirety, then the offences in respect of which the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st

Class, Jamshedpur has found prima facie case is made out against the petitioner

but the only ground upon which the petitioner seeks quashing of the entire

criminal proceeding is that the allegations against him are false which cannot

be adjudicated in this proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, it is

submitted that the Cr.M.P. being without any merit, be dismissed.

7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully

going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention

here that it is a settled principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by

the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C as has been

held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uttar Pradesh &

Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594, the relevant

portion of which reads as under :-

" Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering. (Emphasis supplied)"

8. It is also a settled principle of law that in exercise of the power under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the genuine prosecution cannot be stifled as has been

held in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr. ) & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

& Others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781.

9. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that if

the allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true then, the

offences in respect of which the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,

Jamshedpur found prima facie case is made out against the petitioner but the

only contention of the petitioner for quashing the entire criminal proceeding is

that the allegations against him are false which obviously, the petitioner can

take as a defence in the trial before the competent court but certainly, the same

is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceedings because this Court in