Jharkhand High Court
Rajeev Ranjan S/O Shatrughan Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 October, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2025:JHHC:30784 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2090 of 2019
------
Rajeev Ranjan S/o Shatrughan Singh, aged about 44 years, Branch
Manager, R/o Bhagalpur Road, P.O., P.S. & Dist-Dumka.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, and
2. Gyan Shankar Dubey son of Late Kamlakhar Dubey, R/o-
Harindanga Bazar, Pakur, Sitla Mandir Road, PO Pakur, PS-Pakur
(T), Dist.-Pakur.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sardhu Mahto, Addl.P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. Though, notice has validly been served upon the opposite party
no.2, yet no on turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal
proceeding including the order taking cognizance and summoning order
dated 13.12.2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in
P.C.R. Case No.434 of 2013 involving the offences punishable under
Sections 379, 384, 406, 420, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
( 2025:JHHC:30784 )
4. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner stopped the Tata
Sumo Victa vehicle driven by the complainant which belongs to the
employer of the complainant and took the vehicle to Dumka by disclosing
that the vehicle is being seized by financier for default in payment of the
instalments but did not release the vehicle even after the instalment
amount was paid. The complainant filed the complaint Case vide P.C.R.
Case No.102 of 2012 and the same was referred to police under section
156(3) of the Cr.P.C. by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur.
Basing upon the same, Pakur Town P.S. Case No.121 of 2012 was
registered and police took up investigation of the case. After completion
of the investigation, police submitted Final Form finding that the
allegation against the petitioner to be not true. Thereupon, the
complainant filed a Protest-cum-Complaint Petition which was registered
as P.C.R. Case No.434 of 2013.
5. On the basis of the Protest-cum-Complaint Petition, statement on
solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of enquiry
witnesses, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur has found prima
facie case for the said offences and directed issuance of summons inter alia
against the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sardar Trilok Singh &
Others vs. Satya Deo Tripathi reported in (1979) 4 SCC 396 and submits
that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in para-5 of that
judgement, that assuming that the appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme
( 2025:JHHC:30784 )
Court of India in that case, either by themselves or in the company of
some others went and seized the truck from the house of the respondents;
they could and did claim to have done so in exercise of their bona fide
right of seizing the truck on the respondent's failure to pay the third
monthly instalment, in time. Therefore, the dispute amounts to a bona
fide civil dispute. In that case, in view of the highly exaggerated version
given by the respondent of that case, that the appellants of that case went
to his house with a mob armed with deadly weapons and committed the
offence of dacoity, the said the case was quashed and set aside by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anup Sarmah vs. Bhola
Nath Sharma and Others reported in (2013) 1 SCC 400, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgment in the case
of Charanjit Singh Chadha vs. Sudhir Mehra reported in (2001) 7 SCC
417 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the
recovery of possession of the vehicle by the financier as per terms of the
hire-purchase agreement, does not amount to a criminal offence. In that
case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also relied upon its own
judgment in the case of K.A. Mathai vs. Kora Bibbikutty reported in
(1996) 7 SCC 212 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that in
case of default to make payment of instalments, the financier has a right
to resume possession, even if the hire-purchase agreement does not
contain a clause of resumption of possession, for the reason that, such a
( 2025:JHHC:30784 )
condition is to be read in the agreement. Therefore, it is lastly submitted
that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.
8. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand
vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant
Cr.M.P and submits that the allegations made against the petitioner in the
complaint, statement on solemn affirmation and statement of the inquiry
witnesses is sufficient to show that the petitioner has committed the
offences in respect of which cognizance has been taken by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur. Therefore, it is submitted that this
Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
9. 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 in view of the settled principle of law in the
case of Sardar Trilok Singh & Others vs. Satya Deo Tripathi (Supra),
Charanjit Singh Chadha vs. Sudhir Mehra (Supra) and K.A. Mathai vs.
Kora Bibbikutty (Supra) and in view of the admitted case of the
complainant that the employer of the complainant defaulted in payment
of instalments dues, the seizure of the vehicle which was financed by the
employer of the petitioner namely Tata Motors Finance Limited, this
Court is of the considered view that none of the offences punishable
under Sections 379, 384, 406, 420, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code is
made out, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are
considered to be true in their entirety. Because once it is held that the
( 2025:JHHC:30784 )
petitioner was entitled to take possession of the vehicle, the offence
punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.
10. In the absence of any allegation of extortion by the petitioner, the
offence punishable under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code is not
made out.
11. In the absence of entrustment of any property to the petitioner by
anyone and in the absence of any allegation of dishonest
misappropriation of any entrusted property, the offence punishable under
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.
12. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned, in the absence of any allegation that the
petitioner cheated and dishonestly induced anybody to part with any
property, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal
Code is not made out.
13. In view of the discussions made above, since none of the offences in
respect of which cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Pakur is made out even if the entire allegations made against
the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, hence, this Court
is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding
against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a
fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking
cognizance and issuance of summons dated 13.12.2013 passed by learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in P.C.R. Case No.434 of 2013 involving
( 2025:JHHC:30784 )
the offences punishable under Sections 379, 384, 406, 420, 120B/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.
14. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order
taking cognizance and issuance of summons dated 13.12.2013 passed by
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in P.C.R. Case No.434 of 2013
involving the offences punishable under Sections 379, 384, 406, 420,
120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed and set aside qua the
petitioner only.
15. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed.
16. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted
vide order dated 07.01.2020, is vacated.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 06th of October, 2025
AFR/ Abhiraj
Uploaded on 08/10/2025
