Jharkhand High Court
Nilima Das vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 12 September, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2094 of 2024
------
Nilima Das, aged about 40 years, D/O Prabir Kumar Das, Aadhar
no-8148 2657 3181, Director of Pavapuri Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. R/O-
At:- Near Jaiswal petrol pump, above Liberty show Room, 1st.
Floor, Part-A, Post- Ratu Road, PS- Sukh-deo nagar, District-
Ranchi, Permanent addrerss 67/1/1A, 1st.Floor, Ibrahimpur Road,
Jadavpur University, PO+PS- Jadavpur, Kolkata, west Bengal-
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sakaldeo Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P.
------
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 proceeding including
the order taking cognizance dated 07.02.2024 in connection with Ramgarh
P.S. Case No.96 of 2023 in which though the petitioner was not named in the
F.I.R. During the investigation of the case, her name has been cropped up
but she surrendered before the court and has been released on bail.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner voluntarily
assisted in concealing and disposing of and making away with the property
which she knew and has reason to believe to be stolen property and while
she was transporting the stolen property in the truck, the same truck was
seized by police. Consequent upon the investigation of the case, police
submitted charge-sheet inter alia against the petitioner and vide order dated
07.02.2024, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh has taken
cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 414 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not
committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in this case by
concocting a false story. It is then submitted that the petitioner is not named
in the F.I.R. and that the petitioner is the bonafide purchaser of the seized
iron scrap. Consequent upon the petitioner being granted anticipatory bail,
she surrendered before the trial court and upon petition being filed by her,
the seized materials have been released in her favour by the orders of the
concerned court. Hence, continuation of this criminal proceeding against the
petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, it is submitted
that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this Cr.M.P. be allowed.
5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently
opposes the prayer made by the petitioner in this Cr.M.P. and submits that
the seized materials has been released only because of the reason that the
Investigating Officer of the case intimated to the court concerned that the
retention of the seized materials in the police station is not required for the
investigation of the case. It is next submitted that the contention of the
petitioner is that she is innocent, is a defence which she can take during the
appropriate stage of the trial but certainly, a mini trial cannot be conducted
at this stage to verify the defence of the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that
this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
6. 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 the power under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C as has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Another vs. Akhil Sharda & Others
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)"
7. 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.
8. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific
allegation against the petitioner of committing the offences alleged. The
allegation against the petitioner was found to be true during the
investigation of the case and hence chargesheet has been submitted against
her. Consequent upon which cognizance has also been taken by the learned
Magistrate. The only contention of the petitioner for quashing the entire
criminal proceeding is that the allegation against the petitioner is false. The
veracity of the documents produced by the petitioner can be ascertained
only during the full dress trial. The same cannot be done in exercise of the
power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by this Court. Hence, this Court is of the
considered view that there is no merit in this Cr.M.P.
9. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 12th of September, 2024
AFR/ Saroj
