Suraj Pratap Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 5979 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Suraj Pratap Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 September, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                       2025:JHHC:28881

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   W.P (Cr.) No.446 of 2024
                            -----
Suraj Pratap Singh, son of Bhanu Pratap Singh, resident of Flat No.
401, Saraswati Apartment, Asha Shree Garden, Tagore Hill Road,
Morabadi, PO Bariatu, PS Bariatu, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
                                                  ... Petitioner(s).
                         Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Urvashi Pandey, wife of Amar Kumar Pandey, resident of House No.
121, Diggi Talab, Station Road, near Ajanta Tourist Home, Banda, PO
Banda, PS Banda, District Banda (Uttar Pradesh)
                                                  ... Respondent(s).
                             ------
                           PRESENT
                      SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
                             ------
For the Petitioner(s)     : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
                            Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate
For the State             : Mr. Ravi Kerketta, SC-VI
                            Md. Jalisur Rahman, Advocate
                            .........

                      JUDGMENT

CAV on :28.07.2025 Pronounced on : 19.09.2025

In this writ petition the petitioner has made the following prayers:

(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) /order(s) and or direction(s), particularly a writ of certiorari for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with FIR being Bariatu PS Case No. 115 of 2024 dated 03.04.2024 registered for offence punishable under sections 341, 342, 406, 409, 420, 448, 354, 504, 506, 509 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the learned Court of Sri Shivraj Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

2. It is the case of the informant that the petitioner along with other persons entered into the house of the informant while installation of AC work was being done. The informant's husband was not at home and she was with her two children,

mother and sister. They started howling and threatening the informant that without their permission nothing could be done in the society. They abused the informant and also assaulted the mechanic who was carrying out the installation work of the AC. It has been further alleged that the flat owners are afraid due to the dominance and political connections of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are false and malafide, only to harass him. Learned counsel further submitted that the informant entered into an agreement for sale with the petitioner for a residential apartment with two car parking space in the basement. The agreement for sale clearly stated that any modification or alteration in the property was not permitted without the permission of the developer. Pursuant to the agreement for sale, sale deed bearing no. 1338 dated 19.02.2020 was also executed, which mentioned that the purchaser would not do anything in the flat that might cause nuisance or inconvenience to other occupiers of the said apartment. The husband of the informant is the Deputy Superintendent of Police and had misused his power and position to send threatening messages to the petitioner. The petitioner had only requested the informant to re-route the copper and electric wire of the AC unit as it was intersecting the gas pipeline of the society. Further no complaint against the petitioner's conduct was made by other flat owners. He further submitted that none of the offences under the alleged penal sections under the F.I.R. are made out against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel representing the State and the informant submitted that the petitioner had entered the house of the informant and used filthy language, threatened her and also damaged the copper pipe fitted in AC causing a loss of

Rs. 75,000/-. It is further submitted that the case was initially investigated by the District Police but on 25.04.2024 the investigation was taken over by the State CID which registered CID P.S. Case No. 10 of 2024. The Investigating Officer of CID visited the house of informant and was shown photographs of pipeline and wiring of AC that were destroyed by the accused persons and also shown the illegal penthouse constructed on the terrace of the building by the petitioner. All the witnesses have supported the prosecution story and stated that the petitioner is a powerful person and has political links.

5. The First Information Report (FIR) has been registered under sections 341, 342, 406, 409, 420, 448, 354, 504, 506, 509 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The law in respect of quashing of the FIR is well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others"

reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down the parameters which is as under:

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

6. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State of Telangana v. Managipet" reported in (2019) 19 SCC 87 has held that when the FIR has been lodged only to wreck vengeance with sole and malafide intention to harass, the FIR can also be quashed. In paragraph no. 33, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"33. In the present case, the FIR itself shows that the information collected is in respect of disproportionate assets of the accused officer. The purpose of a preliminary inquiry is to screen wholly frivolous and motivated complaints, in furtherance of acting fairly and objectively. Herein, relevant

information was available with the informant in respect of prima facie allegations disclosing a cognizable offence. Therefore, once the officer recording the FIR is satisfied with such disclosure, he can proceed against the accused even without conducting any inquiry or by any other manner on the basis of the credible information received by him. It cannot be said that the FIR is liable to be quashed for the reason that the preliminary inquiry was not conducted. The same can only be done if upon a reading of the entirety of an FIR, no offence is disclosed. Reference in this regard, is made to a judgment of this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] wherein, this Court held inter alia that where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused and also where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

7. Considering the aforesaid proposition of law, I have to proceed in this case. The petitioner herein is one of the Director of Private Limited Company and is in the business of construction. The company of the petitioner has constructed the building where the alleged incident had occurred which is the subject matter of this case. From the FIR it is clear that there was some dispute in respect of installation of the Air Conditioner Unit. Even what has been stated in the FIR is taken into account and taken to be true then also it is clear that there was some disagreement between the parties in respect of setting up of the said AC Unit. This petitioner to question the informant went in her flat and thereafter it is stated that they verbally abused in slang language. Further in the FIR it is stated that the mechanic who was fitting the AC was assaulted by the persons of this petitioner. They could not have assaulted without the express permission of this petitioner. Thereafter it is stated that the

persons who were fitting the AC Unit were moved out of the terrace and terrace door was locked. Admittedly because of placing of outdoor unit in the terrace by the informant this entire incident had occurred. Terrace is a common place in a multi storied building over which no one can have exclusive control. Without permission no one can fix any personal machine or instrument in a terrace of a multi storied building. Here it is also the case of the informant that this petitioner and others questioned the informant when outdoor unit was being set-up.

8. Moving to the section under which the petitioner has been implicated:-

Sections 341 and 342 IPC are punishment for wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement respectively. Wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement has been described in sections 339 and 340 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under.

Section 339 IPC - Wrongful restraint.--

Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.

Exception.--The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this section.

Section 340 IPC- Wrongful confinement.--

Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person.

In this case, I find from the FIR itself even if what has been stated is taken to be true, this petitioner and others knocked the door by pressing the call bell and after when the door was opened, they entered the house, where entire alleged incident of

verbal abuse had taken place. Thus it cannot be said there is any implication of wrongful restrain or wrongful confinement. Further there is allegation that the mechanics were driven out from the terrace when they were fixing the outdoor unit of AC. Thus, it cannot be said that the act fell under the definition of wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement, as the terrace is a common place and without taking any permission, they had entered the terrace. The Exception of section 339 IPC in this case is applicable.

9. Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is punishment of criminal breach of trust as defined in section 405 IPC and section 409 IPC is punishment for criminal breach of trust by a public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent. Sections 405 and 409 IPC reads hereunder:-

Section 405 IPC - Criminal breach of trust.-- Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust"

Section 409 IPC - Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent.--

Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with 1 [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 409 is not at all applicable on the facts of the instant case which arises absolutely out of a private dispute in respect of fixing of AC Unit in a multistoried building. So far as criminal breach of trust is concerned, section 405 of the Indian Penal Code defines the same. To bring home the offence, there should be entrustment with property or with any dominion over the property and there should be misappropriation or conversion by the accused for his own use. From the allegations made in the FIR none of the ingredients are made out. Thus, sections 406 and 409 of IPC are also not maintainable.

10. So far as section 420 IPC is concerned, it is punishment for cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Cheating is defined under section 415 IPC which is as under:

Section 415 IPC - Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".

Explanation.--A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.

As per the aforesaid section there should be element of deceiving any person fraudulently or dishonest inducement by the person to deliver some property to any person. Further if there is consent that any person shall retain any property or induces a person so deceived, to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he was not so deceived, the said is cheating. Thus, in this case entire facts which have been narrated in the FIR, ingredients of section 415 IPC are also not made out.

11. Section 448 IPC is the punishment for house trespass. House trespass is defined under section 442 IPC. As per section 442 IPC a person commits criminal trespass by entering or remaining in building used as human dwelling place of worship, place for custody of property. Section 442 IPC reads as under:

Section 442 IPC - House-trespass.--

Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit "house-trespass". Explanation.--The introduction of any part of the criminal trespasser's body is entering sufficient to constitute house-trespass.

12. Criminal trespass is defined under section 441 IPC. As per Section 441 IPC there has to be an intention to commit an offence or to intimidate or insult or annoy any person in possession of such property. If a person lawfully enters that property and remains there with an intention to intimidate or insult or annoy then a criminal trespass is made out. Section 441 IPC reads as under:-

Section 441 IPC - Criminal trespass.--

Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit "criminal trespass".

In this case from the FIR it is clear that there was dispute in respect of setting up of outdoor unit of AC. This petitioner and others had gone to the flat of the informant. Before entering they pressed the call bell and after the door was opened, they entered. The intention of their entering which is apparent from the FIR, is to raise a dispute and question the informant about fixing the AC

unit in a common area which resulted in verbal altercation. Thus it also cannot be said that offence under section 448 IPC is made out.

13. Section 354 IPC deals with outraging modesty of a woman.

Section 354 IPC - Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.--

Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will there by outrage her modesty, 1 [shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine].

So far as section 354 IPC is concerned, to apply section 354 IPC the offence must be committed against a women : criminal force must be applied against her and the application of force must be with an intent to outrage her modesty. All these ingredients must co-exists simultaneously. In a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Naresh Aneja vs. State of U.P." reported in (2025) 2 SCC 604. The Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph no.20 has discussed how the offence under section 354 is made out. It is necessary to quote paragraph no.20 of the said judgment which is hereunder:

"20. A bare perusal of Section 354 IPC reveals that for it to apply, the offence must be committed against a woman; criminal force must be applied against her; and such application of force must be with the intent to outrage her modesty. [See : Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra [Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 4 SCC 371 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1259] ]"

In the instant case, I find nothing from the FIR that the intention of the petitioner was to outrage the modesty of the informant.

14. Further from the fact of this case, I am of the view that sections 504 and 506 IPC are also not applicable as the dispute is only in respect of installing AC which was given a criminal colour.

15. Thus from the entire FIR it is quite clear that the dispute arose in respect of setting up of an outdoor Unit of AC and the same has been converted into FIR. Further the fact which cannot be lost sight of is that the informant's husband is in police force. Surprising these type of allegation, now is being investigated by CID. This also gives an impression that to wreck vengeance this case has been lodged. In view of what has been held above, I am inclined to allow this writ petition.

16. This writ petition is allowed.

17. Consequently, FIR being Bariatu PS Case No. 115 of 2024 is quashed.

18. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands disposed of.

(ANANDA SEN, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated : 19.09.2025 Tanuj/ .A.F.R.