Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1235 (JHR)

Upendra Thakur v. State of Jharkhand

2012-08-22

R.R.PRASAD

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.18 of 2005 including the order dated 20.7.2006 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been taken against the petitioner. 3. The entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance is being sought to be quashed on the ground that the prosecution has been launched by the opposite party no.2 maliciously and is a counter blast to a case lodged by this petitioner against the complainant. 4. In this respect it was submitted that Manjeet Singh Sundi and his brother Turi Sundi (complainant) have been entrusted with the work under the scheme which was supposed to be completed within three months but in spite of taking money in advance when they were not proceeding with the work to complete within the time, notice was given to them to complete the work within the time. After giving notice, the other day the petitioner when came to supervise the work, he did not find the work incomplete and therefore, he directed the complainant and his brother to complete the work within the time but the accused persons became quite enraged and they assaulted the petitioner and attempted to kill the petitioner but with the intervention of the labourers, the petitioner came out of the clutches of those two persons. For the said occurrence, FIR was lodged which was registered as Chaibasa (Mufassil) P.S case no.42 of 2005 under Sections 341, 323, 353/34 of the Indian Penal Code on 20.3.2005. Subsequently, out of the grudge, a complaint was lodged wherein it was alleged that after completion of the work when request was made to this petitioner to make entry in the measurement book, he avoided to make entry with the purpose to get Rs.5000/-illegally by the complainant which the complainant never agreed to give it and therefore, when the complainant met this petitioner on 19.3.2005 in front of District Collectorate, Chaibasa, the complainant again made request to take measurement which annoyed the petitioner and he lost temper and thereby he assaulted the complainant with fists and kicks and also abused in public view. On such allegation, a complaint was lodged on 26.4.2005, upon which cognizance of the offence has been taken 341,323 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act which is under challenge. 5. Mr. Mazumdar, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner in his official capacity had given a notice to the complainant and his brother for completing the work which had been assigned to them under the scheme. When he came to verify as to whether the scheme has been completed or not, the petitioner was assaulted, for which a case was lodged. After more than a month, a complaint was lodged by the complainant alleging therein that it was the petitioner who had assaulted him near the District Collectorate and also abused him to humiliate the complainant which allegation appears to be after thought and as such, the prosecution can be said tobe a malicious prosecution. In such situation, entire criminal proceeding warrants to be quashed, in view of the decision rendered in a case of Anjani Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another [ (2008) 5 SCC 248 ] which is recently followed in a case of Deo Lakhan Paswan vs. State of Jharkhand and another [ 2012 (1) JLJR 206 (SC)]. 6. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submitted that it is not that the work had not been completed, rather the work had already been completed and, therefore, the complainant asked the petitioner to make necessary entry in the measurement book but he did not make necessary entry in the measurement book for the reason that he wanted to some illegal money which was never paid and, therefore, the complainant when met on the day of occurrence, asked to make necessary entry in the measurement book, the complainant was not only assaulted but was abused also to humiliate him attracting offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Under this situation, the order taking cognizance never warrants to be quashed. 7. Under this situation, the order taking cognizance never warrants to be quashed. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it does appear that on the one hand, it is the stand of the petitioner that the instant prosecution against the petitioner is tainted with malice and hence, entire criminal proceeding warrants to be quashed whereas the stand which has been taken by the opposite party no.2 that the allegation does constitute offence under which cognizance has been taken and therefore, it never warrants to be quashed. 8. At this stage, I may refer to a decision rendered in a case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] where their Lordships have given identify the ground on which criminal proceeding can be quashed. One of such grounds is as follows: “Whether criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 9. In the instant case as I have already noticed above, the petitioner had already lodged a case on 20.3.2005 when he had been assaulted by the complainant. After more than a month, a complaint was lodged by the complainant stating therein that the complainant was not only assaulted but was also abused with a view to humiliate him. The allegation made by the complainant against the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances stated above, not only seems to be after thought but also seems to have been made with mala fide intention. 10. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.18 of 2005 including the order dated 20.7.2006 taking cognizance is hereby quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned. 11. In the result, this application stands allowed. Application allowed.