Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1475 (JHR)

Prem Sagar Keshri v. State of Jharkhand

2008-12-18

N.N.TIWARI

body2008
ORDER Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.: In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 28th March, 2005, whereby learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 409, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He has further prayed for quashing the order dated 2nd March, 2007, whereby learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Prosecution case is that the informant as well as other eight girls, who had been studying at M. M. Public Welfare School and College, whose names are mentioned in the first information report, had deposited Rs.3,012/-, each, against admission fee, registration fee, promotion test fee, forwarding charge, examination fee form and annual fee of two years. They were told by the Principal that the admit cards would be handed over to them in time for appearing in the Intermediate Examination. But when the complainant and others went to get their admit cards for appearing in the Intermediate Examination, admit cards were not issued to them. The victim students were, thus, prevented from appearing in the examination, which has adversely affected their future career. It has been alleged that the Principal of the said school has committed offence of breach of trust and cheating. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the entire allegations are false and baseless. The materials available on record are not sufficient for taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, but in spite of the above, charges have been framed and the petitioner’s application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. has been erroneously rejected. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and material on record as well as the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations made in the first information report are wholly false, baseless and that no offence much less offences under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. Learned court below has not properly considered the points raised before him and has erroneously rejected the application filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. 6. Learned court below has not properly considered the points raised before him and has erroneously rejected the application filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. 6. Learned counsel referred to and relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] and submitted that 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, the same are liable to be quashed. Such situation comes within the category of the case wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Learned counsel further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. [ (2007)12 SCC 1 ] and submitted that the power possessed by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide and the very plentitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. 7. In that decision, the Apex Court has further held that the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage. 8. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage. 8. Learned counsel submitted that in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami (Supra), the Supreme Court has set aside the order of the High Court which had refused to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner on the ground that the dispute, in question, was purely in civil nature and the Respondent no.3 has already filed a civil suit in the court of Civil Judge. In that circumstance, initiation of criminal proceeding by the respondents against the petitioner was held to be an abuse of process of the Court. 9. Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, opposed the petitioner’s prayer and submitted that the principles laid down in the cases of Bhajan Lal (Supra) and Inder Mohan Goswami (Supra) have got no application to the facts of the instant case. The ground taken by the petitioner that the allegations made in the first information report are wholly false and baseless and the same do not constitute the alleged offences against him is required to be proved by adducing evidences before the Trial Court. Learned court below has considered the facts and materials available on record and has come to the finding that there are sufficient materials for taking cognizance of the said offences against the petitioner. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot take evidences or appraise the same. The disputed factual allegations are to be adjudicated upon and decided by the trial court on the basis of the evidences brought before the said Court. 10. After considering the submissions and the facts and materials on record, I find substance in the submissions made by learned A.P.P. The petitioner has no case that even if the first information report is taken at its face value any penal offence is not constituted. The petitioner has taken defence that the allegations are false and that he (the Principal) never took money, causing any harm to the students. Those points raised by the petitioner are to be scrutinized on the basis of the evidences brought before the court below after its due appraisal and consideration. The petitioner has taken defence that the allegations are false and that he (the Principal) never took money, causing any harm to the students. Those points raised by the petitioner are to be scrutinized on the basis of the evidences brought before the court below after its due appraisal and consideration. Learned Court below has considered the facts and grounds taken by the petitioner in his application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and after due discussion and consideration has rejected the same. The order is well discussed and supported by valid reasons. I find no legal ground for interference with the impugned order. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the decisions referred to and relied upon by the petitioner have got no application to the facts of the present case. 12. I, therefore, find no merit in this petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.