Jharkhand High Court
Abhishek Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 February, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No. 982 of 2024
1. Abhishek Sinha, aged about 43 years, son of Shishir Kumar
Sinha, resident of B/4 Mahamaya Apartment, Harihar Singh
Road, P.O.-Morabadi, P.S.-Morabadi, Dist.-Ranchi
(Jharkhand)
2. Arup Chatterjee, aged about 51 years, son of Anup Chatterjee,
resident of Krishna Enclave, Behind A.G. Office, P.O.-
Doranda, P.S.-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi (Jharkhand)
3. Baby Chatterjee, aged about 49 years, wife of Arup Chatterjee,
resident of Krishna Enclave, Behind A.G. Office, P.O.-
Doranda, P.S.-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi (Jharkhand)
4. Abhishek Kumar Bharti, aged about 35 years, son of S.N.
Bharti, resident of Aryapuri, Dhobi Ghat, Ratu Road, P.O.-
G.P.O., P.S.-Ratu, Dist.-Ranchi (Jharkhand)
.... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Ramawatar Rajgarhia, aged about 51 years, son of Hanuman
Prasad Rajgarhia, resident of 203, Balajee Green Vasant Vihar,
Kanke Road, Gonda, P.O.-Kanke, P.S.-Gonda, Dist.-Ranchi
(Jharkhand)
.... Respondents
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG III
: Mr. Binit Chandra, AC to AAG III
For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Naveen Kr. Jaiswal, Advocate
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 read with 227 of the Constitution of India
with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in
connection with Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No. 511 of 2024
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 132, 115(2),
229, 316(2), 318(4), 351(2), 352, 324, 329(3), 336(3), 338, 336(4),
340(2), 343, 308(2) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner nos.2 and 3 being
the directors of Media Eleven Private Limited- a company, took
the premises of the informant on rent but defaulted in paying rent
and did not vacate the said premises. The informant filed JBC
Case No. 38 of 2017 for eviction of the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and
the petitioner no.2 filed a false affidavit in the said JBC Case No.
38 of 2017 hence, it is alleged that the petitioner no.2 Arup
Chatterjee has given false evidence and fabricated false affidavit
in a judicial proceeding. It is further alleged that JBC Case No. 38
of 2017 has been allowed in favour of the informant and the
execution proceeding was also going on and it is submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that in the meanwhile, petitioner
nos.2 and 3 have been evicted from the tenanted premises of the
informant; which fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for
the respondent no.2-the informant of the case. It is further alleged
that the petitioner no.2 is a history sheeter, being involved in 43
different cases, the list of which have been annexed and he is
threatening the informant by himself and through the petitioner
nos.1 and 4- who are the staffs of the said Media Eleven Private
Limited. After registration of the case, police is investigating the
case.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
even if the entire allegation made against the petitioners in the FIR
are considered to be true in their entirety, still, no offence
punishable in law is made out against the petitioners. It is next
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
allegations against the petitioners are false and this criminal
proceeding has been initiated to harass the petitioners by
wreaking vengeance upon the petitioner no.2, who runs the
satellite news channel and is a senior journalist. It is further
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
petitioner no.1 is the Executive Editor of the said news channel
and the petitioner no.4 is the anchor in the news channel. It is then
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that several
FIRs have been registered against the petitioner nos.2 and 3 in
order to muzzle up the media which is broadcasting the conduct
and activities of the various officers of the State Government and
he is eyesore of the higher officers of the State of Jharkhand. It is
also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
dispute between the parties is a civil dispute. Relying upon the
judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Anil
Kumar Mishra vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. In W.P. (Cr.)
No. 329 of 2005, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Smt. Sudha Devi vs. M.P. Narayanan
reported in AIR 1988 SC 1381 wherein, the following has been
observed in the relevant portion of the said judgment, by the
coordinate Bench, which reads as under:-
"Besides, affidavits are not included in the definition of
'evidence' in Section 3 of the Evidence Act and can be
used as evidence only, if for the sufficient reason court
passes an order under O. XIX, Rule 1 or 2 of the Code of
Civil Procedure".
5. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that it is a settled principle of law as has been reiterated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nitu Singh & Ors.
Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. that failure to pay rent may have civil
consequences, but is not a penal offence under the Indian Penal
Code, 1860. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Mohammad Wajid & Anr. Vs. State
of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951, it is
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that when it
comes to quashing of the FIR or criminal proceeding, the criminal
antecedents of the accused cannot be the sole consideration to
decline the prayer to quash the criminal proceeding; as an accused
has a legitimate right to say before the Court that howsoever bad
his antecedents may be, still, if the FIR fails to disclose
commission of any offence or his case falls withing one of the
parameters as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors.
reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, then the Court should not
decline to quash the criminal case only on the ground that the
accused is a history sheeter. Relying upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Manik Taneja &
Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. reported in (2015) 7 SCC 423,
paragraph no.12 of which reads as under:-
"12. In the instant case, the allegation is that the
appellants have abused the complainant and obstructed
the second respondent from discharging his public duties
and spoiled the integrity of the second respondent. It is
the intention of the accused that has to be considered in
deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within
the meaning of "criminal intimidation". The threat
must be with intention to cause alarm to the
complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any
work. Mere expression of any words without any
intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring
in the application of this section. But material has to be
placed on record to show that the intention is to cause
alarm to the complainant. From the facts and
circumstances of the case, it appears that there was no
intention on the part of the appellants to cause alarm in
the mind of the second respondent causing obstruction
in discharge of his duty. As far as the comments posted
on Facebook are concerned, it appears that it is a public
forum meant for helping the public and the act of the
appellants posting a comment on Facebook may not
attract ingredients of criminal intimidation in Section
503 IPC."
it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in
order to constitute the offence of criminal intimidation, the threat
must be with intention to cause alarm to the person to cause that
person to do or omit to do any work and mere expression of any
words without any intention to cause alarm could not be
sufficient to bring in the application of Section 506 of the Indian
Penal Code which corresponds to Section 351 (2) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as
prayed for in this writ petition be allowed.
6. Learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the
respondent no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer
as made by the petitioners in this writ petition. It is submitted by
the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners
criminally intimidated the informant repeatedly so the offence
punishable under Section 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
is made out. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the
respondents that the petitioners have committed forgery by
creating a false agreement for sale hence, the offence punishable
under Section 336(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is also
made out. Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition being
without any merit be dismissed.
7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent
to mention here that the allegations made against the petitioners
are in four folds, the first is that the petitioners criminally
intimidated the informant, the second is that the petitioners have
committed forgery by creating a fabricated agreement for sale, the
third is that the petitioners defaulted in payment of rent of the
tenanted premises and the fourth is that the petitioners adduce
false evidence by submitting an affidavit.
8. It is a settled principle of law as has been reiterated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Neetu Singh &
Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (supra) that failure to pay rent is not
a penal offence under the Indian Penal Code, the said ratio is
squarely applicable to the provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 as well. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that
nonpayment of the rent of the tenanted premises do not constitute
any offence punishable in law.
9. Now so far as the allegation of adducing false affidavit before
the competent authority under the JBC Case No. 38 of 2017 is
concerned, as has already been held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Smt. Sudha Devi vs. M.P. Narayanan
(supra) that affidavits are not included in the definition of
evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act and can be used as
evidence only if for the sufficient reasons the court passes an
order under Order XIX Rule 1 or 2 of Code of Civil Procedure.
10. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is no material to
suggest that any Order XIX Rule 1 or 2 of Code of Civil Procedure
was ever made. There is no specific detail as to what false
statement has been made in the said affidavit. Under such
circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the
entire allegation made against the petitioners are considered to be
true in their entirety, still, the offence of adducing falls evidence
by filing a false affidavit is not made out against the petitioners.
11. So far as the offence of criminal intimidation is concerned, the
allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners were heard
saying that they will not vacate the house of the informant but as
already indicated above, the petitioners have in fact, being ousted
and evicted from the said house in question. There is no allegation
that the threat was with intention to cause alarm to the informant.
It appears to be the expression of word without any intention to
cause alarm. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that even
if the entire allegation made against the petitioners are considered
to be true in their entirety, still, the offence punishable under
Section 351 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is not made out.
12. So far as the offence of forgery of the document i.e. the
agreement for sale is concerned, there is absolutely no reference to
any agreement for sale executed by the petitioners in favour of the
informant or anyone else on behalf of the informant. Learned
counsel for the respondents fairly submits that the respondent
no.2-informant is not in possession of any document which can be
stated to be forged. In the absence of the same, this Court is of the
considered view that even if the entire allegation made against the
petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still, the
offence punishable under Section 336 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita is not made out.
13. So far as the criminal antecedent of the petitioners are
concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that mere filing of
criminal cases against a person cannot take away the legitimate
right of such person to say before the Court that FIR lodged
against him do not makes out any offence against him. Under
such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that
registration of so many cases against the petitioners cannot be an
impediment for quashing of the FIR; even when, if the entire
allegation made against the petitioners are considered to be true
in their entirety, still, none of the offences punishable in law is
made out.
14. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view
that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in
connection with Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No. 511 of 2024 be
quashed and set aside.
15. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with
Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No. 511 of 2024 is quashed and set aside.
16. In the result, this writ petition is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 12th February, 2025
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
