Ajay Kumar Jha S/O Umesh Chandra Jha vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 4990 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Ajay Kumar Jha S/O Umesh Chandra Jha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 April, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                                             (2017:JHHC:28479)

                                                                                            2017:JHHC:28479




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              Cr.M.P. No.2670 of 2017
                                         ------

1. Ajay Kumar Jha S/o Umesh Chandra Jha,

2. Kishore Kumar Jha S/o Late Vishwanath Jha Both resident of Laxmi Pustakalaya Campus, Opposite Party Khuda Bux Library, P.O.- Patna, P.S.- Pirbahore, Ashok Raj Patha, Patna-800004 ... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Irfan Khan S/o Mr. Sagir Khanm Proprietor- S.K. Book House, resident of Phush Bunglow, P.O.- Bhaga, P.S.- Jorapokhar, Dhanbad, Jharkhand ... Opposite Parties

------

             For the Petitioner            : Mr. Ranjan Kr. Singh, Advocate
             For the State                 : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P.
             For the O.P. No.2             : Mr. Alok Kr. Dubey, Amicus Curiae
                                             ------
                                       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 and set aside the entire criminal proceedings as well as

order taking cognizance dated 25.07.2017 passed in Complaint Case No.775 of

2017 by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant is a distributor of

Arvind Prakashan Private Limited and the petitioners being the persons

responsible for the business of the said Arvind Prakashan Private Limited, have

cheated the complainant by raising a bill of Rs.5,00,000/- against the book shop

(2017:JHHC:28479)

2017:JHHC:28479

of the complainant in the name and style of S.K. Book House, Dhanbad for the

books they had supplied to Gaya; but not to the said book house of Dhanbad of

the complainant and induced the complainant to pay Rs.5.5 lakhs for sampling

the books and also for paying the security money for school development funds

on behalf of the supplier of books; with assurance to supply the books but

petitioners have cheated by not supplying the books and additionally they

caused simple hurt to the complainant by assaulting him with kicks and fists

blows and also criminally intimidated the complainant and also intentionally

insulted the complainant with intention to provoke breach of peace.

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

enquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magisrate-1st Class, Dhanbad has found

a prima facie for the offences punishable under Section 417, 323 and 504 of the

Indian Penal Code in C.P. Case No.775 of 2017 and passed orders for issue of

summons to the accused persons.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the place of

occurrence is few kilometers away from the police station but no First

Information Report or any intimation was given by the complainant to the

police station; which goes to show that the complaint case is a false one. It is

next submitted that for the dishonoured cheques issued by the complainant,

Complaint Case No.1808 (C)/2017 and Complaint Case No.3248 (C)/2017 have

been filed against the opposite party No.2/ complainant.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana & Others vs.

Bhajan Lal & Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and submits that

complaint has been filed with a view to harass the innocent petitioners and is a

(2017:JHHC:28479)

2017:JHHC:28479

malicious prosecution. Hence, the continuation of this criminal proceedings

against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. It is next

submitted that the learned Magistrate ought to have dismissed the complaint

instead of ordering for issuance of summons, in most mechanical manner

without application of his judicial mind. It is lastly submitted that the prayer, as

prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.

7. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned Amicus Curiae

appearing in this case who has been appointed in this case vide order dated

28.03.2025, on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners

made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that in fact Complaint Case No.1808

(C)/2017 and Complaint Case No.3248(C)/2017 are the malicious prosecutions;

because after institution of this complaint case for wrecking vengeance, the

petitioners have misused the cheques issued by the complainant for the

purpose of security only; against default of any payment made by him, and the

petitioners with malafide intention have instituted those cases to harass the

complainant/opposite party No.2 of this case. It is next submitted that there is

direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of cheating and also

voluntarily causing hurt as well as intentionally insulting the

complainant/opposite party No.2 of this case, to provoke breach of peace.

Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned Amicus Curiae further

submit that whether or not a proceeding is malicious one, can only be

determined at the final adjudication of the case and this case of the complainant

cannot be nipped in the bud at this nascent stage. Hence, it is submitted that

this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

(2017:JHHC:28479)

2017:JHHC:28479

8. 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 whether a criminal proceeding was

malicious or not, is not required to be evaluated at the stage of issuing

summons and the same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the

trial as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Aryan Singh & Others reported in

2023 SCC OnLine SC 379 paragraph- 08 of which reads as under :-

08. One another reason pointed by the High Court is that the initiation of the criminal proceedings/proceedings is malicious. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the investigation was handed over to the CBI pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court. That thereafter, on conclusion of the investigation, the accused persons have been chargesheeted. Therefore, the High Court has erred in observing at this stage that the initiation of the criminal proceedings/proceedings is malicious. Whether the criminal proceedings was/were malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this stage. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. In any case, at this stage, what is required to be considered is a prima facie case and the material collected during the course of the investigation, which warranted the accused to be tried." (Emphasis supplied)

9. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific

allegation against the petitioners that they being responsible persons for the

business of Arvind Prakashan Private Limited, cheated the complainant by

inducing him to invest money for sampling of books and to pay the security

money and school development fund of various schools on behalf of them; with

the promise of supplying the books but did not supply the books to the

complainant/opposite party No.2 of this case. So, this prima facie goes to show

that they have cheated and thereby dishonestly induced the complainant to

part with substantial amount of money. Further, there is direct and specific

(2017:JHHC:28479)

2017:JHHC:28479

allegation against the petitioners of causing simple hurt to the complainant by

assaulting him with kicks and slaps. Besides, there is also allegation against the

petitioners of intentionally insulting the complainant to provoke breach of

peace.

10. Under such circumstances, in view of the materials available in the

record, this Court is of the considered view that if the contents of the complaint,

statement on solemn affirmation and the statement of enquiry witnesses are

considered to be true in their entirety then the offence for which prima facie case

has been found by the learned Magistrate, is made out. Accordingly, this Court

is of the considered view that keeping in view the settled principle of law that

the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is to be sparingly used so far as nipping

the criminal proceeding at the bud at the initial stage is concerned, this Court is

of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer, as prayed for

by the petitioners in the instant Cr.M.P. is to be allowed by this Court in

exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

11. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.

12. Before parting, this Court records the appreciation of the services

rendered by Mr. Alok Kumar Dubey- learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this

Court vide order dated 28.03.2025 passed in this case and the Jharkhand High

Court Legal Services Committee is directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to Mr.

Alok Kumar Dubey- learned Amicus Curiae on production of a web copy of this

judgment.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 21st of April, 2025 AFR/ Animesh