Jharkhand High Court
Abha Lakra Alias Anima Ekka @ Abha Ekka vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 January, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No.1050 of 2023
------
Abha Lakra alias Anima Ekka @ Abha Ekka, aged about 35 years,
wife of Simon Herenj, Resident of Vill. Meha, P.O.- Kone, P.S.- Karra,
District- Khunti, 835209 ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Superintendent of Police, Gumla, P.O., P.S. & Dist.- Gumla.
3. Prabha Lakra, wife of Siprianus Khalkho, resident of Gothgaon,
P.O. Chatakpur, P.S. Mahuadanr, Dist.- Latehar
... Respondents
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Navneet Toppo, AC to GP I
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings and the order
dated 18.10.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Gumla in
connection with G.R. No.222 of 2023 arising out of Raidih P.S. Case no.42 of
2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 506
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code by which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st
Class, Ranchi rejected the petition filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. for
discharge of the petitioner who is the accused person of that case.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner, in furtherance of common
intention with the co-accused persons, cheated and dishonestly induced the
informant of Rs.8,00,000/- which has been transferred to the account of the
petitioner for selling a land but he has not sold the land, nor returned the
money. The learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Gumla considered the settled
principle of law that at the stage of framing of charge only prima facie case has
to be seen and observed that there is sufficient material in the record to prima
facie constitute the offence for framing of charges and dismissed the discharge
petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against
the petitioner are false and the co-accused has given undertaking before the
learned Sessions Judge, Gumla that she will return the money. It is next
submitted that the petitioner is making earnest efforts to compensate the
damages and loss suffered by the informant. Hence, it is submitted that the
prayer, as prayed for in the instant Writ Petition (Cr.), be allowed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- State relies upon the Full
Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar
Ravi @ Ram Prasad & Etc. vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in 1987 SCC
OnLine Pat 83 and submits that judicial orders of a criminal court (stricto sensu)
under the Code of Criminal Procedure, are not amenable to quashing by a writ
of certiorari. It is next submitted that otherwise also there is sufficient material
in the record to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code. Therefore, it is submitted that this Writ Petition (Cr.), 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; as has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajbir Singh vs. State of U.P. & Another
reported in (2006) 4 SCC 51: AIR 2006 SC 1963 that when F.I.R. makes out a
commission of an offence there cannot be any order of discharge and then the
accused must face trial.
7. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is direct allegation against the
petitioner is of cheating and inducing the informant to part with Rs.8,00,000/-.
The contention of the petitioner that the allegation against her is false, is a
defence which she can take during the trial but certainly the same cannot be a
ground for discharge. The Full Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Patna High Court
in the case of Ramesh Kumar Ravi @ Ram Prasad & Etc. vs. State of Bihar &
Others (supra) answered the question "Whether the judicial orders of a
criminal court (stricto sensu) under the Code of Criminal Procedure, are
amenable to quashing by a writ of certiorari?" by observing thus in paragraph
No.36 which reads as under:-
"36. In the light of the foregoing discussions the answer to the
question No. (iv) posed at the very outset is rendered in the negative
and it is held that the judicial orders of a criminal court stricto
sensu under the Code of Criminal Procedure are not amenable to
quashing by a writ of certiorari."
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India albeit in response to an order passed
by a civil court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and
Ors. vs. Vivek V. Gawde & Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3722,
relying upon its judgment in the case of Radhey Shyam & Another vs. Chhabi
Nath & Others reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423 rendered by a three Judge Bench,
paragraph No.25 of which is quoted in paragraph No.14 of the judgment of
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. vs. Vivek V. Gawde &
Others (supra) which reads as under:-
"14. In view of such binding decision, the inescapable conclusion
presenting itself is that the appellate order under challenge before the
High Court was rendered by a civil court, and it is trite that orders
passed by a civil court cannot be challenged in a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution. This point in law has been decisively
reiterated in the 3-Judge Bench decision in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi
Nath4. This Court, while holding that an order of the civil court
could only be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution, and
not Article 226 thereof, ruled that:
"25.***All the courts in the jurisdiction of a High Court are
subordinate to it and subject to its control and supervision under
Article 227. Writ jurisdiction is constitutionally conferred on all
the High Courts. Broad principles of writ jurisdiction followed in
England are applicable to India and a writ of certiorari lies
against patently erroneous or without jurisdiction orders of
tribunals or authorities or courts other than judicial courts.
There are no precedents in India for the High Courts to issue
writs to the subordinate courts. Control of working of the
subordinate courts in dealing with their judicial orders is
exercised by way of appellate or revisional powers or power of
superintendence under Article 227. Orders of the civil court
stand on different footing from the orders of authorities or
tribunals or courts other than judicial/civil courts. While
appellate or revisional jurisdiction is regulated by the statutes,
power of superintendence under Article 227 is constitutional.
The expression "inferior court" is not referable to the judicial
courts, as rightly observed in the referring order [Radhey Shyam
v. Chhabi Nath, (2009) 5 SCC 616] in paras 26 and 27 quoted
above.
***
27. Thus, we are of the view that judicial orders of civil courts
are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226. We are
also in agreement with the view [Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath,
(2009) 5 SCC 616] of the referring Bench that a writ of
mandamus does not lie against a private person not discharging
any public duty. Scope of Article 227 is different from Article
226." (Emphasis supplied)
has reiterated the said settled principle of law.
9. As already indicated above, there is direct and specific allegation against
the petitioner of having committed the offence of cheating, punishable under
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and in view of bar in issuing a writ of
certiorari for quashing a judicial order passed in a criminal case by a judicial
court, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this Writ
Petition (Cr.).
10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition (Cr.), being without any merit, is
dismissed.
11. In view of disposal of the instant Writ Petition (Cr.), the interim order
granted vide order dated 20.02.2024, is vacated.
12. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 30th of January, 2025
AFR/ Animesh
