Akhilesh Kumar @ Mukesh Choudhary vs State Of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J

Heard the parties.

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the order dated 14.06.2022 passed by learned JMFC, Godda in connection with PCR Case no. 309 of 2022 by which learned Magistrate, prima facie found sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 277 and 427 of IPC and passed the summoning order.

The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners committed mischief by filling up old government well with soil and the same was protested by the complainant and his wife and at this, the petitioners intentionally insulted the complainant and his family members, provoking them to cause breach of peace or any other offence by abusing them with filthy language and caused hurt to the wife of the complainant by assaulting and manhandling her and criminally intimated her and because of the acts of the petitioners, the water of the well is no more potable and they vandalized the articles of the house of the complainant by which their value was diminished. On the basis of the complaint, the statement on Solemn Affirmation, the statement of the enquiry witness, learned Magistrate prima facie found sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioners in respect of the offences; as already indicated in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgement.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. It is next submitted that the complaint is the counter blast case to Godda (Town) P.S. case no. 53 of 2022 filed as an afterthought, about two months of lodging of the said FIR on 18.04.2022 on the basis of the false and fabricated allegation. It is next submitted that the petitioner no. 1 was on duty at Malda at the time of the alleged occurrence and the petitioner no. 2 was on duty in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner no. 3 was at this place of duty at Sahibganj at the time of the occurrence; hence, it is submitted that prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

Learned Spl. PP and learned counsel for the Opp. Party no. 2 on the other hand, vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners and submit that alibi of some of the petitioners that they were not present at the time of occurrence, is the defence of the petitioners, which they can take at the time of the trial but the same cannot be a ground for quashing and setting aside the order dated 14.06.2022 passed by learned JMFC, Godda in connection with PCR Case no. 309 of 2022, at this initial stage, when the evidence of the prosecution is yet to begin. It is further submitted that there is no dispute that the allegation made against the petitioners, if are considered to be true in their entirety, then the same is sufficient enough to constitute each of the offences in respect of which learned Magistrate has found prima facie case to proceed against the petitioners, hence the only contention of the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are false, which is again a defence of the petitioners, which they can take during the trial of the case, hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed.

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that the defence of the accused person and the veracity put forth by the accused person cannot be considered by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 of CrPC as that would be the job of the trial court as has been held by the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors. reported in 2004 2 Supreme 501.

It is also a settled principle of law that no mini trial can be conducted by the high court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594, the relevant portion of which reads as under :-

“ Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482CrPC. As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions, no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482CrPC, jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considering. (Emphasis supplied)

Now coming to the facts of the case, the only contention of the petitioners is that, some of the petitioners were not present at the time and place of the occurrence. But, as already indicated above, the alibi is a defence which the petitioners can take during the full dress trial of the case and in the absence of any document of unimpeachable character cannot be considered by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482 of CrPC.

So far as the contention of the petitioners that the allegation against the petitioners is false, is again the defence of the petitioners which they can take during the full dress trial of the case but the same is not a sufficient ground to quash the order dated 14.06.2022 passed by learned JMFC, Godda in connection with PCR Case no. 309 of 2022.

The undisputed fact remains that the allegations made against the petitioners, if are considered to be true in their entirety; then the offences in respect of which learned Magistrate has found the prima facie materials to proceed against the petitioners, is in fact made out.

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case, where prayer made by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition, is to be acceded to in exercise of its power under Section 482 of CrPC.

Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit is dismissed.