Pankaj Kumar Singh 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 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 16.11.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Koderma in connection with Complaint Case No. 793 of 2017 in which the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Koderma has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 427, 447, 467, and 506/34 of Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioners is that on 17.07.2017 the petitioners in furtherance of common intention trespassed into the premises of the complainant, demolished the structures of him over his land with the help of JCB machine, caught hold of the complainant, assaulted him and caused hurt to him, committed theft of Rs.5,000/- and on the basis of forged documents are claiming ownership of the land belonging to the complainant.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner nos.1 and 2 have purchased the land from Sunil Kumar Sinha and Sandip Kumar Sinha who are the rightful owners of the land and the land has been mutated in the name of the petitioner nos.1 and 2. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainant has also filed Title Suit No. 09 of 2016 being the plaintiff no. 4 in the said suit and the court below failed to appreciate that the dispute is a pure civil dispute. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the offences as alleged is not made out against the petitioners and earlier Sanjay Kumar Sinha filed Complaint Case No. 745 of 2015 with the same and similar allegation. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand opposes the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 16.11.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Koderma in connection with Complaint Case No. 793 of 2017. It is next submitted by learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of committing criminal trespass, causing simple hurt, wrongfully restraining the complainant, committing theft and forgery and criminally intimidating the complainant. It is next submitted by learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that though the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Koderma has not found case for the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code at the time of framing of charge, it is open for the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Koderma to frame charges for the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code as well. It is next submitted by learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that if the allegation made in the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses are considered to be true in its entirety then the offences for which the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Koderma has found prima facie case , as well as the offence punishable under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, is made out against the petitioners. 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 the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been reiterated by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhil Sharda & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 594 that no mini trial can be conducted by the high court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, 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)

It is also a settled principle of law that in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the genuine prosecution cannot be stifled as has been held in the case of Monica Kumar (Dr. ) and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781.

Now coming to the facts of the case, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of wrongfully restraining by catching hold of the complainant and causing hurt by assaulting him and also committing theft of Rs.5,000/- from the pocket of the complainant. There is also allegation against the petitioners of committing forgery.

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the allegation made in the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses are considered to be true in their entirety, then prima facie case for the offences in respect of which the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Koderma has found prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. Hence, this Court is not inclined to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 16.11.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Koderma in connection with Complaint Case No. 793 of 2017.

Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.

The interim order granted earlier vide order dated 03.04.2019 is vacated.

Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.