Jharkhand High Court

Sathuri Gopal Rao vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 September, 2024

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    Cr.M.P. No. 3906 of 2018


      Sathuri Gopal Rao, aged about 75 years, s/o late Sathuri Ram Murty,
      r/o Near "Ram Niwas", Road No.15, Mango, P.O.-Azadnagar, P.S.-
      Mango, Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum
                                            ....            Petitioner
                                Versus

      1. The State of Jharkhand
      2. Sathuri Surya Prakash, aged about 59 years, s/o late Atchutha Rao,
         r/o B-4, Tayo Colony, Gamharia, Dist.-Saraikela Kharsawan,
         Jharkhand, Permanent r/o-Ram Niwas, Road No.15, Jawahar
         Nagar, P.O.+P.S.-Mango (T), Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum
                                            ....                Opp. Parties
                                     With
                        Cr.M.P. No. 2763 of 2018


      Sathuri Chiranjeev Rao @ Sathuri Chiranjeevi Rao, aged about 49
      years, s/o late Sambasiv Rao, r/o "Ram Niwas", Road No.15, Mango,
      P.O.-Azadnagar, P.S.-Mango, Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum
                                            ....            Petitioner
                                Versus

      1. The State of Jharkhand
      2. Sathuri Surya Prakash, aged about 59 years, s/o late Atchutha Rao,
         r/o B-4, Tayo Colony, Gamharia, P.O. & P.S.-Seraikela, Kharsawan,
         Dist.-Saraikela Kharsawan, Jharkhand, Permanent r/o-Ram Niwas,
         Road No.15, Jawahar Nagar, P.O.+P.S.-Mango (T), Jamshedpur,
         Dist.-East Singhbhum
                                     ....                Opp. Parties
                                PRESENT

          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
                               .....

For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashish Jha, Advocate : Mr. Mayank M. Sinha, Advocate

with

For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, Addl. P.P. : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, Addl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate : Ms. Supriya Dayal, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate .....

By the Court:-

I.A. No.38 of 2021 (in Cr.M.P. No. 3906 of 2018)

1. Heard the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No. 3906 of 2018

submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a

prayer for substitution of the certified copy of the FIR of Mango P.S.

Case No.251 of 2017 which has been marked as Annexure 1 to the

Cr.M.P. No. 3906 of 2018 with the fresh certified copy of the Mango

P.S. Case which has been marked annexure-B of the instant

interlocutory application and for amendment of Cr.M.P. No. 3906 of

2018 at paragraph no.10 in page no.7 by deleting the averments

made in the said paragraph, as petitioner is not relying upon the

same. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner of

Cr.M.P. No. 3906 of 2018 that as the certified copy of the FIR which

has been marked as Annexure-1 to the Cr.M.P. No. 3906 of 2018 was

incomplete hence, the same requires to be substituted by Annexure-

B of the instant interlocutory application which is the complaint

lodged.

3. Considering the aforesaid facts, the prayer is allowed.

4. This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

with

I.A. No.2 of 2021 (in Cr.M.P. No. 2763 of 2018)

1. Heard the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No. 2763 of 2018

submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a

prayer for substitution of the certified copy of the FIR of Mango P.S.

Case No.251 of 2017 which has been marked as Annexure 1 to the

Cr.M.P. No. 2763 of 2018 with the fresh certified copy of the Mango

P.S. Case which has been marked annexure-B of the instant

interlocutory application and for amendment of Cr.M.P. No. 2763 of

2018 at paragraph no.9 in page no.7 by deleting the averments made

in the said paragraph, as petitioner is not relying upon the same. It is

next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner of Cr.M.P.

No. 2763 of 2018 that as the certified copy of the FIR which has been

marked as Annexure-1 to the Cr.M.P. No. 2763 of 2018 was

incomplete hence, the same requires to be substituted by Annexure-

B of the instant interlocutory application which is the complaint

lodged.

3. Considering the aforesaid facts, the prayer is allowed.

4. This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

Cr.M.P. No. 3906 of 2018 with Cr.M.P. No. 2763 of 2018

1. Heard the parties.

2. Both the 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 in

with

connection with Mango P.S. Case No. 251 of 2017, corresponding to

G.R. No. 2227 of 2017, order taking cognizance dated 29.06.2018

whereby and where under after submission of charge sheet against

the petitioners the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur

has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 323,

385, 420, 504, 506 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, order dated

20.07.2017 passed in C/1 Case No. 2171 of 2017 whereby the learned

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur has referred the case for

institution of the FIR and lastly for quashing the order dated

12.12.2018 whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate

1st Class, Jamshedpur has framed charges against the petitioners

under Sections 323, 385, 420, 504, 506 and 120B of Indian Penal Code.

Hence, both these criminal miscellaneous petitions are disposed of

by this common judgment.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 12.06.2017 the

petitioner of Cr.M.P. No. 2763 of 2018 namely Sathuri Chiranjeev

Rao called the complainant to Ram Nivas, which used to be the

property of a partnership firm namely Sathuri Engineer and

demanded extortion of Rs.10,00,000/- from the complainant and

when the complainant protested, they assaulted the complainant

with fists blows and caused hurt to him and also tried to snatch

away the cheque book from the complainant. There is also allegation

against the petitioners of preparing forged documents by, in criminal

conspiracy with each other, signing falsely and trying to register an

agreement for sale by impersonation and also cheated and by way of

cheating changed the name of the board of Ram Nivas from Sathuri

Engineer to Bharat Engineering. There is also allegation against the

with

petitioners of criminal intimidation of the complainant and

internationally insulting him to provoke commission of offence.

4. The complainant filed Complaint Case No. 2171 of 2017 which was

referred to police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. basing upon which

Mango P.S. Case No. 251 of 2017 was registered and police took up

investigation of the case.

5. After completion of investigation, police found the allegations

against the petitioners to be true and submitted charge sheet against

the petitioners for having committed the said offences and on the

basis of the same, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,

Jamshedpur has taken cognizance and subsequently charges for the

said offences have been framed against the petitioners.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the

complainant has suppressed the material fact that the complainant

filed the Title Partition Suit No. 83 of 2006 in which the petitioners of

these criminal miscellaneous petitions were defendants; which was

filed with a prayer for partition of the joint family property and the

suit was dismissed on 29.06.2013. Relying upon the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Usha Chakraborty &

Anr. vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine

SC 90, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that

non-disclosure of the said fact of filing the title suit and its dismissal

before filing the complaint goes to show that as the complainant-

informant has availed the civil remedy and the dispute between the

parties is a civil nature hence, it is submitted that on this score alone,

the prayer made by the petitioners in the criminal miscellaneous

petitions be quashed.

with

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon the judgment

of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Priyanka

Srivastava & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in

(2015) 6 SCC 287 and submits that in this case before filing the

complaint, the complainant having not complied with the provisions

of Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C. hence, the reference of complaint to the

police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is bad in law and on this score

also, the prayer made by the petitioners in the criminal

miscellaneous petitions be quashed.

8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for

the opposite party no.2 on the other hand opposes the prayer as

made by the petitioners in the criminal miscellaneous petitions and

submits that this is not a case of civil dispute rather the petitioners

have committed extortion, caused hurt, criminally intimidated the

complainant, intentionally insulted him, in criminal conspiracy with

each other and besides that having committed offence of cheating; so

the ratio of Usha Chakraborty & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal &

Anr. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case, more so because

unlike the case of Usha Chakraborty & Anr. vs. State of West

Bengal & Anr. (supra) where only FIR was registered, but in this

case the allegation against the petitioners was found to be true after

investigation of the case by the police and charge sheet has been

submitted, cognizance has been taken and even charge has been

framed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur

upon considering the materials available in the record including the

case diary by the police. So far as the non-compliance of Section 154

(3) Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is submitted that keeping in view the fact

with

of the case where the allegation made against the petitioners was

considered to be true in the investigation by the police, at this

belated stage the non-compliance of Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C. cannot be

taken into consideration for quashing the entire criminal proceeding.

Hence, it is submitted that these criminal miscellaneous petitions

being without any merit be dismissed.

9. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going

through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here

that so far as the judgment of Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. vs. State

of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (supra) is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in the case of M/s SAS Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The

State of Telangana & Another in Criminal Appeal No.2574 of 2024

dated 14.05.2024 passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2123 of

2024 paragraph-9 of which reads as under:-

"9. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has placed reliance of the decision of this Court in "Priyanka Srivastava And Another Versus State of Uttar Pradesh And Others"

(2015) 6 SCC 287 to submit that the complaint filed by the appellant - complainant was not supported by an affidavit. In our opinion, the said observation has been made in the said case by way of abundant caution to see that frivolous complaints are avoided." (Emphasis supplied)

has opined that the observations made in the case of Priyanka

Srivastava & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (supra)

has been made in the said case by way of abundant caution to see

that frivolous complaints are avoided.

10. Now coming to the facts of the case, the complaint is supported by

an affidavit. The complainant in paragraph no.16 of the complaint

has categorically stated that the complainant went to Mango police

station but the Officer-in-Charge was not present and on meeting the

with

munshi, the munshi suggested to file a case in the court of law. So in

the considered opinion of this Court, this is not a fit case where the

entire criminal proceeding is to be quashed only on the ground of

non-compliance of Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C. more so, at the belated

stage when police after investigation of the case found the allegation

against the petitioners to be true and submitted charge sheet and

consequent upon that cognizance of the offences has been taken by

the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur and charge has

already been framed against them.

11. So far as the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the

case of Usha Chakraborty & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal & Anr.

(supra) is concerned, that was a case where only FIR was lodged but

here not only the FIR has been lodged but the allegation inter alia of

extortion, causing hurt, criminally intimidating the complainant,

intentionally insulting him and cheating, were all found to be true by

the police upon investigation of the case and charge sheet has been

submitted against the petitioners and charge has already been

framed. So in the considered opinion of this Court, this is not a fit

case where the entire criminal proceeding is to be quashed only

because a partition suit filed by the complainant earlier in which the

petitioners were the defendants has been dismissed but the same has

not been mentioned in this complaint.

12. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

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

relevant portion of which reads as under:-

with

" 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)

that no mini trial can be conducted by the high court in exercise of

power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for deciding the genuineness of the

allegation made.

13. It is also a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr.) and

Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2008) 8

SCC 781 that the genuine prosecution cannot be stifled in exercise of

power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

14. In view of the discussions made above as there is direct and

specific allegation against the petitioners of commission of offences

not only of civil nature but also extortion, causing hurt, criminal

intimidation, causing intentional insult to the complainant, cheating

and the same were found to be true by the police during the

investigation of the case and cognizance has been taken by the

learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur and charges have