Siddhartha Sankar Das 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 a  prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Jorapokhar P.S. Case No.90 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 427, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the investigation of the case is still going on and charge-sheet has not yet been submitted.

The allegation made in the written report basing upon which the said F.I.R. has been registered is that the management of B.C.C.L. is forcibly carrying on mining work of the tenancy land of the informant and causing a loss of billions to the informant. It is further alleged therein that, whenever the informant is carrying on agitation in consonance with the Constitution, the B.C.C.L Management is implicatingthe informant in false cases and Gunda elements of B.C.C.L. and outsourcing agencies are intimidating and threatening the informant and also assaulting him. Hence, the informant requested the Officer-In-charge  of  Bhawra  (O.P.)  under  Jorapokhar  Police  Station  to initiate legal action and on the basis of the same, the F.I.R. has been registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of either causing hurt or causing mischief or intentionally insulting anyone or criminally intimidating anyone and in the absence of the same, the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law and this F.I.R. has been instituted only because the petitioners are highly placed officers of the B.C.C.L. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.

Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for  the  opposite  party  No.2  on  the  other  hand  vehemently  oppose  the prayer  of  the  petitioners  made  in  the  instant  Cr.M.P.  and  submit  that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are sufficient to constitute each of the offences in respect of which the F.I.R. has been registered. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P. being withoutany merit, be dismissed.

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully  going  through  the  materials  available  in  the  record,  so  far  as the offence punishable under Section 3  of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 is concerned, “public property” has been defined in Section 2 (b) of the said Act which means any property, whether immovable or movable which is owned by, or in the possession of, or under the control of–

(i) the Central Government; or (ii) any State Government; or

(iii) any local authority;or

(iv) any corporation established by, or under, a Central, Provincial or State Act or

(v) any company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956; or

(vi) any institution, concern or undertaking which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.

and Section 3 of the said Act provides for punishment of the person who commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property.

Now, coming to the facts of the case; there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of any mischief being committed in respect  of  any  public  property.  Hence,  this  Court  is  of  the  considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section  3  of  the  Prevention  of  Damage  to  Public  Property  Act,  1984  is not made out against the petitioners.

So far as the offence punishable under  Section 323 of the  Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no allegation against either of the petitioners of having caused any hurt to anybody. So, the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners.

So far as the offence punishable under  Section 427 of the  Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no allegation against the petitioners of causing mischief so in the absence of any such allegation, certainly the offence  punishable  under  Section  427  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  is not made out against the petitioners.

So far as the offence punishable under  Section  504 of the  Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is absolutely no allegation against either of the petitioners of intentionally insulting anyone. So, in the absence of the same, obviously the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners.

So far as the offence punishable under  Section  506 of the  Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no allegation against either of the petitioners of committing criminal intimidation of anyone. Under such circumstances,  the  offence  punishable  under  Section  506  of  the  Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioners.

In view of the discussions made above, since none of the offence in respect of the  F.I.R. is  made out in respect of the petitioners even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners in the F.I.R. are considered to be true in their entirety, hence, this Court is of the considered  view  that  the  continuation  of  this  criminal  proceeding  and the F.I.R. against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Jorapokhar P.S. Case No.90 of 2022, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners named above.

Accordingly,  the  entire  criminal  proceedings  in  connection  with Jorapokhar P.S.  Case  No.90 of  2022,  is quashed  and  set  aside qua  the petitioners named above.

In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.