Jharkhand High Court
Rati Kant Tripathi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 September, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3784 of 2018
Rati Kant Tripathi, Aged about 52 years, son of Late Surya Prakash
Tripathi, resident of Flat No. 203, Ganpati Apartment Extension, Steel
Gate, Saraidhela, Dhanbad, P.O.+P.S. -Saraidhela, District -Dhanbad.
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rama Prasad Singh, son of Bacha Prasad Singh, R/o -North Loco
Tank Area, P.O. + P.S. + District -Dhanbad
.... Opp. Parties
With
Cr.M.P. No. 3794 of 2018
Md. Hasan Raja @ M.H. Raja @ M.N. Raja, Aged about 33 years, son of
Md. Mukhtar Ansari, resident of Amaspur, P.O.+P.S. -Govindpur,
District -Dhanbad .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rama Prasad Singh, son of Bacha Prasad Singh, R/o -North Loco
Tank Area, P.O. + P.S. + District -Dhanbad
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioners : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
: Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, Addl. P.P.
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. Both these criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed
invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
with the common prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding
With
including the order dated 13.07.2017 passed in connection with
C.P. Case No. 1089 of 2017 by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st
Class, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned Judicial
Magistrate -1st Class found prima facie case for the offences
punishable under Section 323, 385, 420, 467, 468, 504, 506 & 120B
of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 23.04.2017, the
petitioner of Cr.M.P. No. 3794 of 2018 with the co-accused -Nitesh
Pathak and other gun wielding persons went to the house of the
complainant and misbehaved with the females and the children.
They told to measure the land; as the complainant has not paid
rupees five lakhs. The petitioner of Cr.M.P. No. 3784 of 2018 and
one Shukla Jee told that unless rupees five lakhs is paid, the house
of the complainant will be demolished and the house will be put
to auction. The father of the complainant took a business loan
from Punjab National Bank, Chitragoda Branch. The complainant
deposited Rs.17,25,000/- as per the direction of the Debt Recovery
Tribunal, Ranchi but even then rupees five lakhs is being
demanded by the petitioners from the complainant. The
petitioners have filed a false affidavit before the court that they
have not received any money. On the basis of the complaint,
statement of the complainant under solemn affirmation and
statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate
With
-1st Class, Dhanbad found prima facie case for the said offences as
already indicated above.
4. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners
that the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No. 3784 of 2018 is the Chief
Manager of Punjab National Bank and he was authorized officer
of the Punjab National Bank under the SARFAESI Act. It is then
submitted that the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No. 3794 of 2018 joined as
the Manager of Chitragoda Branch on 01.02.2017 and later on
transferred to Govindpur Branch of Punjab National Bank with
effect from 01.07.2017. It is next submitted by the learned senior
counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and
they have been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance as they being the authorized
officers of the Punjab National Bank under the SARFAESI Act and
also being the officer of the said bank, were trying to ensure
realization of the loan advance by the bank; on behalf of the bank.
The loanee Sri Bacha Prasad Singh has not complied the order of
the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi entirely in time and therefore
the Bank served another notice on 21.07.2016 as per the direction
of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi. It is next submitted that
there is no allegation of causing hurt to anybody by the
petitioners, hence the offence punishable under Section 323 of the
Indian Penal Code is not made out even if the entire allegations
against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety. It
With
is then submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners
that in the absence of any allegation that the petitioners have
cheated and thereby dishonestly induced anybody to part with
any property, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is next submitted that in the
absence of any allegation that the petitioners have created any
false document, the offence punishable under Section 467 and 468
of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is then submitted that
as there is no allegation of dishonest inducement of the
complainant or anyone else; by the petitioners to deliver any
property etc., the offence of extortion is not made out and in the
absence of the offence of extortion, the offence punishable under
Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out. It is
then submitted that insisting for payment of the defaulted loan
amount of the bank to a borrower cannot be termed as dishonest
inducement of the loanee. It is further submitted that in the
absence of any allegation of causing any intentional insult with
intent to provoke breach of peace, the offence punishable under
Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out and in the
absence of any criminal intimidation, the offence punishable
under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.
Therefore, it is submitted that the continuation of this criminal
proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process
of law. Hence, it is submitted that the common prayer as prayed
With
for by the petitioners in both these criminal miscellaneous
petitions be allowed.
5. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes
the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in these criminal
miscellaneous petitions and submits that there is direct allegation
against the petitioners of demanding extortion of Rs.5,00,000/-, so
the offence punishable under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code
is made out against the petitioners and in view of the allegation
that they misbehaved with the female members and children of
the family of the complainant, the offence punishable under
Section 504/506 is also made out against the petitioners. Hence, it
is submitted that these criminal miscellaneous petitions being
without any merit be dismissed.
6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to
mention here that there is absolutely no allegation against the
petitioners of causing any hurt to anyone, so the offence punishable
under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.
7. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the
offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code
applicable to the case are that:
(1) there is a fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by
deceiving him,
With
(2) (a) the person so induced should be intentionally induced to
deliver any property to any person or to consent that any
person shall retain any property, or
(b) the person so induced to do anything which he would not do
or omit if he were not so deceived, and
(c) in case covered by second part of clause (a), the act or
omission should be one which caused or was likely to cause
damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind or
property
as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of R.S. Nayak vs. A.R. Antulay reported in (1986) 2 SCC 716. Two
essential ingredients for the offence punishable under Section 420 of
the Indian Penal Code are:
(1) deceit, that is to say fraudulent and dishonest
misrepresentation; and
(2) inducing the person so deceived to part with any
property.
8. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation
against the petitioners of any fraudulent or dishonest inducement
of anybody nor there is any allegation against the petitioners of
inducing any person deceived to part with property. Under such
circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the
entire allegations against the petitioners are considered to be true,
still the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal
Code is not made out against the petitioners.
9. So far as the offence punishable under Section 467 and 468 of the
Indian Penal Code are concerned, the creation of a false document
or false electronic record is a sine-qua-non for constituting the said
offence.
With
10. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation
against the petitioners or anyone else of creating any false
document. Under such circumstances, in the absence of creation of
any false document, the offence punishable under Section 467 and
468 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.
11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 385 of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the
said offences are that:-
The accused put or attempted to put any person in fear of
injury and he did so to commit extortion and in order to
constitute extortion, the inducement of the victim must be
done dishonestly.
12. Now coming to the facts of the case, the admitted case of the
complainant is that his father took a loan which became a non-
performing asset and a case was instituted before the Debt
Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi by the bank. So it is the admitted case
of the complainant that his father was a defaulter in the loan taken
by him from the Punjab National Bank. Under such
circumstances, insistence on the part of the petitioners for
repayment of the loan amount due and payable to the bank
cannot be termed as dishonest inducement so as to constitute the
offence of extortion and in the absence of the same, this Court is of
the considered view that even if the entire allegations are
considered to be true, still the offence punishable under Section
385 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the
petitioners.
With
13. So far as the offences punishable under Section 504 and 506 of
the Indian Penal Code are concerned, it is a settled principle of
law as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported
in (2019) 14 SCC 207, paragraph nos. 24 and 25 of which reads as
under :-
"24. Now, we revert back to the allegations in the complaint
against the appellant. The allegation is that the appellant
with two or three other unknown persons, one of whom was
holding a revolver, came to the complainant's house and
abused him in filthy language and attempted to assault him
and when some neighbours arrived there the appellant and
the other persons accompanying him fled the spot. The above
allegation taking on its face value does not satisfy the
ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 as has been enumerated
by this Court in the above two judgments. The intentional
insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person
to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The
mere allegation that the appellant came and abused the
complainant does not satisfy the ingredients as laid down in
para 13 of the judgment of this Court in Fiona Shrikhande
[Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC
44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] .
25. Now, reverting back to Section 506, which is offence of
criminal intimidation, the principles laid down by Fiona
Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra,
(2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] has also to be
applied when question of finding out as to whether the
ingredients of offence are made or not. Here, the only
allegation is that the appellant abused the complainant. For
proving an offence under Section 506 IPC, what are the
ingredients which have to be proved by the prosecution?
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal on Law of Crimes, 27th Edn. with
regard to proof of offence states the following:
"... The prosecution must prove:
(i) That the accused threatened some person.
(ii) That such threat consisted of some injury to his
person, reputation or property; or to the person,
reputation or property of someone in whom he was
interested;
(iii) That he did so with intent to cause alarm to that
person; or to cause that person to do any act which he
was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act
which he was legally entitled to do as a means of
avoiding the execution of such threat."
With
A plain reading of the allegations in the complaint does not
satisfy all the ingredients as noticed above." (Emphasis
supplied)
That that in order to constitute the offence punishable under
Section 504 of Indian Penal Code, the essential ingredients are that
there should be intentional insult of such a degree that should
provoke any person to break public peace or commit any other
offences.
14. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation
against the petitioners of causing any intentional insult to anyone
of such a degree that should provoke any person to break the
public peace or commit any other offence. Hence, even if the
entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to
be true, still the offence punishable under Section 504 of the
Indian Penal Code is not made out.
15. So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned, a plain reading of the allegations in the
complaint does not constitute the ingredients for the offences
punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code as has
been mentioned in para-25 of the aforesaid Judgment.
16. Because of the discussions made above, this Court is of the
considered view that even if the entire allegations made in the
complaint, statement of the complainant under solemn
affirmation and statement of the inquiry witnesses are considered
to be true in their entirety, still none of the offences for which the
With
learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad has found prima
facie case as mentioned above in the judgment is made out.
Hence, continuation of this criminal proceeding against the
petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this
is a fit case where the common prayer as prayed for by the
petitioners in these criminal miscellaneous petitions be allowed
qua the petitioners only.
17. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order
dated 13.07.2017 passed in connection with C.P. Case No. 1089 of
2017 by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad
whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st
Class found a prima facie case for the offences punishable under
Sections 323, 385, 420, 467, 468, 504, 506 & 120B of the Indian Penal
Code, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only.
18. In the result, these criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 20th September, 2024
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
With
