Jharkhand High Court
Anil Kumar Agarwal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 March, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1539 of 2024
------
Anil Kumar Agarwal, aged about 66 years, son of late Hari
Prasad Bakrewalla (Agarwala), resident of 'B' Block, House
No.16, 3rd Floor, Nishant Vihar Colony, Beside Ashiana Trade
Centre, P.O. & P.S.-Adityapur, Dist.-Seraikella-Kharsawan,
PIN-831013 ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Arun Agarwala @ Arun Kumar Bakrewalla s/o late Hari
Prasad Bakrewalla (Agarwala), r/o 'Aryunoday', P.O. &
P.S.-Sundernagar, Town-Jamshedpur, Dist.-East
Singhbhum, Pincode-832107
... Opposite Parties
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Ms. Amrita Panda, Advocate
: Mr. Dilip Kr. Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shankar L. Agarwal, Advocate
: Ms. Ayushi, Advocate
------
Order No.06 Dated- 21.03.2025
Heard the parties.
This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed at the
instance of the petitioner with a prayer to recall the order dated
01.03.2024 passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 3217 of 2022 to the
extent that the said order mistakenly mentioned that no material has
been placed on record by the petitioner as well as no date or time has
been mentioned by the petitioner without considering the averments
made in the affidavit and documents filed along with the original
petition as well as the rejoinder affidavit.
The brief fact of the case is that the opposite party no.2 was
given the privilege of anticipatory bail vide order dated 15.07.2021
passed in A.B.A. No. 275 of 2021 with the condition that he will
cooperate with the trial of the case and he will not go to the portion of
the factory namely M/s. Metal Seals Industries and Nutech Chemicals
Limited during the pendency of the case and he will not cause any
hinderance to the complainant of C/1 Case No. 1032 of 2017 of the
court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur or any of his agents
or authorized persons to enter the portion of the said two industries
during the pendency of the case and consequent upon the said order,
the opposite party no.2 was admitted to bail by the court concerned.
By filing Cr.M.P. No. 3217 of 2022 in this Court, it was contended
by the petitioner that the petitioner and his family members on
03.08.2021 went to the factory namely M/s. Metal Seals Industries and
Nutech Chemicals Limited in violation of his undertaking made before
the learned trial court for being released on bail in terms of the said
order passed by this Court in A.B.A. No. 275 of 2021 and the opposite
party no.2 obstructed the petitioner in accessing the factories unit and
also continued to usurp and be in illegal possession despite of
categorical undertaking given by him for being released on bail and the
opposite party no.2 obstructed the entry of the petitioner by use of
criminal force along with his accomplishes and the son of the petitioner
reported the matter to police and lodge an online complaint against the
opposite party no.2 and his son and police refused to accept the
complaint.
Learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2 appearing in the said Cr.M.P. No. 3217 of 2022 opposed the prayer
for cancellation of bail and contended that the opposite party no.2 has
not violated any terms and condition of the bail therefore, prayed that
criminal miscellaneous petition be dismissed.
This Court, after considering the principle of law regarding
cancellation of bail, once granted to an accused in a case, considered
that there is no allegation against the opposite party no.2 as to on which
date and at what time the opposite party no.2 ever obstructed the entry
of the petitioner to the factory premises and the allegations in this
respect were vague and not specific. This Court also considered that
there is no material in the record to suggest that the opposite party no.2
ever entered inside the factory premises after his submitting
undertaking before the learned trial court on 28.09.2021 and finding no
justifiable reason to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party no.2
dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner annexed ample photographs demonstrating manifest breach
of undertaking and conditions of the order dated 15.07.2021 being
flouted which has escaped consideration by this Court while passing
the order dated 01.03.2024. It has been contended in this criminal
miscellaneous petition that in Annexure-4 series of Cr.M.P. No. 3217 of
2022 which is the copy of letter purportedly sent to the Station House
Officer, Sundernagar Police Station, Tata -Hatta Road, Sundernagar,
Jamshedpur and submits that the same is the relevant document which
was not considered by this Court and also submits that Annexure-8 of
Cr.M.P. No. 3217 of 2022 which is the photostat copy of the legal notice
dated 08.07.2022 and some photographs have not been considered by
this Court while passing the said order in Cr.M.P. No. 3217 of 2022.
On being asked by the Court to the learned counsel for the
petitioner as to whether in the petition of Cr.M.P. No. 3217 of 2022 any
date or time at which the opposite party no.2 allegedly ever obstructed
the entry to the petitioner in the concerned factory premises has been
mentioned, it is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that no time has been mentioned anywhere but it is
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in paragraph
no. 20 (a) at page no. 19, paragraph no. 20 (c) at page no. 22 and in
paragraph no. 21 of the main petition at page no. 24 as well as
paragraph no. 9 (b) at page no. 11 as well as paragraph no. 13 of the
rejoinder, dates on which the petitioner went to the factory concern but
factory were found locked or chained has been mentioned but nowhere
it has been mentioned that by the time the petitioner arrives at the
factory premises, the opposite party no.2 was present simultaneously
with the presence of the petitioner at the factory concerned or that the
opposite party no.2 ever came face-to-face with the petitioner, in or
around the concerned factory. It is submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the prayer as prayed for in this criminal
miscellaneous petition be allowed.
Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State
vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this criminal
miscellaneous petition and submits that petition is in the teeth of
Section 362 of Code of Criminal Procedure and relying upon the
judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nazma
v. Javed @ Anjum reported in (2013) 1 SCC 376, paragraph no. 12 of
which reads as under:-
"12. We are of the view that the High Court has committed a
grave error in not only entertaining the criminal miscellaneous
application in a disposed of writ petition, but also passing an order
not to arrest the first respondent till the conclusion of the trial.
Grant of bail or not to grant, is within the powers of the regular
criminal courts and the High Court, in its inherent jurisdiction, is
not justified in usurping their powers. Once the criminal writ
petition has been disposed of, the High Court becomes functus
officio and cannot entertain review petitions or miscellaneous
applications except for carrying out typographical or clerical
errors. In the instant case, the High Court has entertained a
petition in a disposed of criminal writ petition and granted reliefs,
which is impermissible in law." (Emphasis supplied)
It is submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that once
the criminal miscellaneous petition has been disposed of, this Court
become functus officio and cannot entertain review petition or
miscellaneous applications except for carrying out typographical or
clerical error and submits that in the instant case, no typographical or
clerical error could be pointed out by the petitioner to have happened,
rather the petitioner intends to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court to
rehear and review its own order; which is not permissible in law.
Learned Special Public Prosecutor next relies upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Moti Lal Songara
v. Prem Prakash @ Pappu and Anr. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 199,
paragraph no. 19 of which reads as under:-
"19. The second limb of the submission is whether in the
obtaining factual matrix, the order passed by the High Court
discharging the respondent-accused is justified in law. We have
clearly stated that though the respondent was fully aware about the
fact that charges had been framed against him by the learned trial
Judge, yet he did not bring the same to the notice of the Revisional
Court hearing the revision against the order taking cognizance. It
is a clear case of suppression. It was within the special knowledge
of the accused. Anyone who takes recourse to method of
suppression in a court of law, is, in actuality, playing fraud upon
the court, and the maxim suppressio veri, expressio falsi i.e.
suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood,
gets attracted. We are compelled to say so as there has been a
calculated concealment of the fact before the Revisional Court. It
can be stated with certitude that the respondent-accused tried to
gain advantage by such factual suppression. The fraudulent
intention is writ large. In fact, he has shown his courage of
ignorance and tried to play possum." (Emphasis supplied)
and submits that the petitioner was fully aware about the fact
that there was a station diary entry made on the basis of the complaint
of the petitioner and the Officer-in-Charge of Sundernagar police
station went to the place of occurrence and found the allegation made
by the petitioner to be false but the petitioner has deliberately
suppressed the same. It is a clear case of suppression and is a calculated
concealment on the part of the petitioner and the petitioner tried to
gain advantage by such suppression, therefore, the fraudulent intention
is writ large on the part of the petitioner hence, it is a case where a
petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed with exemplary costs.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand
submits that it is an admitted case of the petitioner that the opposite
party no.2 never came face to face with the petitioner in or around the
factory premises, after his submitting the bail bond hence, the question
of the opposite party no.2 obstructing the petitioner does not arise. It is
then submitted that since no occasion ever took place admittedly by the
petitioner when the opposite party no.2 came face-to-face with the
petitioner in or around the factory premises concerned, so obviously
there was no occasion of the opposite party no.2 obstructing the
petitioner; therefore, the question of any pleading or contention of the
petitioner of any time or date of obstruction of the petitioner by the
opposite party no.2 does not arise and the same can at best be a figment
of the imagination of the petitioner to make out a false case, as an
afterthought. Hence, it is submitted that there is no rhyme or reason for
interfering with the order passed by this Court dated 01.03.2024 in
Cr.M.P. No. 3217 of 2022. It is lastly submitted that, this criminal
miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.
Replying on the point of law, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner relying upon the order of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of New India Assurance Company
Limited vs. Krishna Kumar Pandey reported in (2021) 14 SCC 683 that
therein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its judgment
in the case of State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar reported
in (2011) 14 SCC 770 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
negatived the submission made by one of the parties before it, that the
High Court has no remedy to alter or review the judgment rendered by
it earlier in view of Section 362 of Code of Criminal Procedure; by
observing in paragraph no. 10, that if a judgment has been pronounced
without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice or
where the order has been pronounced without giving an opportunity
of being heard to a party affected by it or where an order was obtained
by abuse of process of the court which would really amount to its being
without jurisdiction, inherent powers can be exercised to recall such
order for the reason that in such an eventuality the order becomes a
nullity and the provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C. would not operate.
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 main grievance of the petitioner is that in the
order dated 01.03.2024 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 3217 of 2022, this Court
has observed that there is no allegation against the opposite party no.2
as to on which date and time the opposite party no.2 ever obstructed
the entry of the petitioner to the factory premises.
It is the admitted case of the petitioner that no time has been
mentioned in the petition or rejoinder filed by the petitioner in Cr.M.P.
No. 3217 of 2022 when the opposite party no.2 ever obstructed the
entry of the petitioner to the factory premises. It is also admitted case of
the petitioner that there was no occasion ever when the opposite party
no.2 came face to face with the petitioner at the place where the factory
is situated. Which obviously means there was no occasion for the
opposite party no.2 to ever obstruct the entry of the petitioner to the
factory premises.
Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in
holding that when it is accepted by the petitioner that the opposite
party no.2 never came face to face with the petitioner in or around the
concerned factory, there is no way by which the opposite party no.2
could have obstructed the petitioner from entering the factory
premises.
Therefore, keeping in view the limited scope for interference in
its own order of this Court, in view of the settled principle of law
settled in the case of State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar
(supra), this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable
reason to interfere with its order dated 01.03.2024 passed in Cr.M.P.
No. 3217 of 2022; there being no illegality in the same nor there is any
error typographical or otherwise in the same. Nor by any stretch of
imagination , the same can be termed as a nullity.
Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without
any merit is dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of this criminal miscellaneous petition,
I.A. No. 1847 of 2025 is disposed of being infructuous.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AFR-Sonu-Gunjan/
