Rajendra Karamshi Chawda @ Raju Chhawra 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 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 03.11.2022 arising out of Complaint Case No.1423 of 2018 of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is next fixed to before charge evidence on 13.03.2026 but charge has not yet been framed in this case.

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner acted upon a false affidavitof the father of the complainant purportedly made by the co-accused without verifying the genuineness of the said affidavit and transferred the drug license of the shop of the father of the complainant in the name of the co-accused who is the younger brother of the father of the complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner of making the false document. There is no allegation against the petitioner of hatching any conspiracy to make any false document. Further, there is no allegation against the petitioner of deceiving or inducing the complainant or anyone else to part with any property and there is no allegation against the petitioner of committing criminal intimidation. Hence, none of the offences in respect of which the learned Magistrate has found the prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. It is also submitted that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands; by suppressing the material fact, that for the self-same allegations, except the alleged occurrence of 10.05.2018 at about 01:30 pm, the complainant earlier filed C.P. Case No.3016 of 2013 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad which was dismissed vide order dated 01.07.2014. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are false. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.

Learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P.

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the court, it is pertinent to mention here that the allegation of making false document is upon the co-accused namely Binod Kumar Singh. There is no allegation against the petitioner of making any false document nor is there any allegation against the petitioner of using any forged document as genuine. There is no allegation that the petitioner had the knowledge while acting upon the affidavit produced by the co-accused; that the same was a forged document.

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety still none of the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code is made out even with the aid of either Section 120B or Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are as follows:-

(i) deceit, that is to say dishonest or fraudulent misrepresentation, and

(ii) Inducing the person so deceived to part with property

as has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Narayan Popli vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2003) 3 SCC 641.

Now, coming to the facts of the case; there is no allegation against the petitioner of either deceiving the complainant or anyone else in any manner nor is there any allegation against the petitioner of inducing any person to part with any property. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety still the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner even with the aid of either Section 120B or Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is absolutely no specific allegation against the petitioner of committing any criminal intimidation and the allegations are more and less general and vague in nature. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint are considered to be true in their entirety still none of the offences in respect of which prima facie case has been found by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad is made out against the petitioner more so when the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands by suppressing the material facts that earlier C.P. Case No.3016 of 2013, filed by him, has already been dismissed by the court concerned.

Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner, will amount to abuse of process of law, therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 03.11.2022 arising out of Complaint Case No.1423 of 2018 of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner named above.

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 03.11.2022 arising out of Complaint Case No.1423 of 2018 of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner named above.

Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.