Jharkhand High Court
Sujeet Kumar Singh @ Sanjeet Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 March, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No.1033 of 2023
------
1. Sujeet Kumar Singh @ Sanjeet Kumar Singh, Aged 44 years, S/o
Late Yamuna Singh, Q. No. H B 29, Adarsh Nagar, P.O Dhurwa,
P.S Jagarnathpur, District : Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Pradeep Kumar Shaha, Aged 54 Years, Head Manager, SREI
Equipment Finance Company, S/o Ram Prasad Shaha, B/3c,
Rmadev Vihar, Ashok Niket Road, Opp. Road No. 4, Ashok
Nagar, P.O & P.S Argora, District Ranchi.
... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Vijay Kumar Varnwal, Aged 50 Years, S/o Parasnath Varnwal,
R/o Gandhi Nagar, P.O & P.S Mirza Chowki, District : Sahebganj,
Jharkhand.
... Respondents
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. SC-II
For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Advocate
Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Sunita Kumari, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for
issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Mirzachouki Case
No.65 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections
420/467/468/471/120/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the co-accused- Mukesh
Singh took back the Mahindra CB5X vehicle from the informant after obtaining
the surrender certificate from the informant; which Mahindra CB5X vehicle; the
informant purchased after financing it, from SREI Equipment Finance Limited.
It is alleged that the petitioners assured that the informant is not having any
due payable to the said financer. But subsequently the said financer issued a
demand notice of Rs.10,39,915 and the petitioners on the basis of forged
documents with an intention to cheat the informant, repeatedly pressurizing
the informant to pay about Rs.10,00,000/-.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of this court
in the case of Gagan Dudhani vs. The State of Jharkhand passed in Cr.M.P.
No.1239 of 2023 dated 18.05.2023 and submits that in that case, this Court, by
relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Sushil Sethi & Another vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Others reported in
(2020) 3 SCC 240, has reiterated that if there is no specific allegation against the
accused person of any case of doing any overt act, on behalf of the company; in
such cases; if the company has not been made an accused, the entire criminal
proceedings can be quashed against such accused person. Learned counsel for
the petitioners next submits that there is absolutely no allegation against the
petitioners except that they told the informant that the informant has no due
amount payable to the finance company concerned. It is further submitted that
there is no allegation that the informant owes any money to the petitioners or
the petitioners did anything on behalf of the company concerned or that he
owe any money to the petitioners or has any transaction with the petitioners in
respect of taking the said vehicle by obtaining finance, from the finance
company being SREI Equipment Finance Limited. Hence, it is submitted that
the prayer as prayed for in this Writ Petition (Cr.) be allowed.
5. Learned Sr. SC-II appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the
opposite party No.2 opposes the prayer of the petitioners and submit that at
this nascent stage, the entire criminal proceedings ought not to be quashed and
the further allegation can be found against the petitioners during the
investigation of the case. It is next submitted that since there is no allegation of
any imputation against the SREI Equipment Finance Limited, hence, there is no
need for arraying the company as an accused. Hence, it is submitted that this
Writ Petition (Cr.), being without any merit, be dismissed.
6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going
through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here
that the only allegation against petitioner No.1, is of taking the vehicle back.
There is no allegation against the petitioners of cheating or dishonestly
inducing the informant to part with any money. There is no allegation against
the petitioners of creating any false document. There is no specific allegation
against the petitioners as to which forged document they have used.
7. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even
if the entire criminal proceedings made against the petitioners are considered
to be true in their entirety, still none of the offence for which the FIR has been
registered is made out against the petitioners. Hence, this is a fit case where the
entire criminal proceedings in connection with Mirzachouki Case No.65 of 2023
is liable to be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only.
8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings in connection with
Mirzachouki Case No.65 of 2023 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners
only.
9. In the result, this Writ Petition (Cr.) is allowed to the aforesaid extent
only.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 10th of March, 2025
AFR/ Saroj
