Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1285 (JHR)

Ajit Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2012-08-31

H.C.MISHRA

body2012
Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the complainant opposite party No.2. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st, Dhanbad, in CP. No. 970 of 2009, whereby the application filed for discharge by the petitioner was rejected by the Court below. 3. The petitioner has been made accused in the Complaint Case filed by opposite party No. 2 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 970 of 2009. In the said complaint case it is alleged that the petitioner Ajit Kumar' Singh, who is the Block Co-operative Extension Officer-cum-In-charge of the Kolakusma Panchayat, had falsely implicated the husband of the complainant in Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 588 of 2007. It is further stated that an application was filed by the complainant under the Right to Information Act for getting information about the false implication of her husband, due to which, it is alleged that the petitioner, on 29.5.2009 abused the complainant, her son and nephew, who belonged to scheduled caste, in filthy languages taking the name of their caste, assaulted her and demanded levy of Rs.50.000/- for exonerating her husband from the criminal case. Accordingly, the complaint petition was filed for the alleged offences u/ss. 323, 504, 341, 386, 384 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The complainant's statement was recorded on solemn affirmation and the witnesses were examined at the enquiry stage, on the basis of which prima facie offence was found against the petitioner and the process was issued against him. Subsequently, the petitioner filed application for discharge, which was rejected by the Court below by the impugned order holding that, in that view of the allegations against the petitioner, there was sufficient material to frame charge u/s. 341, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(x) and (xi) of S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is apparent from the impugned order that no prima facie offence was found against the petitioner for the offence u/ss. 384 and 386 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. It is apparent from the impugned order that no prima facie offence was found against the petitioner for the offence u/ss. 384 and 386 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case only due to wreaking vengeance on the petitioner and due to personal grudge as he is the informant in Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 588 of 2007 in which there is serious charge of defalcation of Govt. fund against the husband of the complainant and only in order to take revenge from the petitioner the said complaint petition has been falsely instituted against the petitioner. It is submitted that in the said Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 588 of 2007 the police has filed charge-sheet after investigation against the husband of the complainant for the offence u/ss. 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and cognizance has also been taken by the Court concerned. Learned counsel accordingly; submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant opposite party No. 2 on the other hand has submitted that on the basis of the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the complaint petition, the statement of the complainant recorded on solemn affirmation and the witnesses examined by the complainant at the enquiry stage, the offence is clearly made out against the petitioner and there is no illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Court below, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. 6. After having heard learned counsel for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that in the complaint petition itself, the complainant has stated that this petitioner had falsely implicated her husband in Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 588 of 2007. The FIR of the said Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 588 of 2007 has been brought on record, from the perusal of which it appears that the petitioner is the informant in the said case and there is direct allegation against the husband of the complainant namely, Puran Ravidas of misappropriation of the Government fund. The charge-sheet has also been filed by the police after investigation and cognizance has also been taken against the husband of the complainant by order dated 8.12.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, which has also been brought on record. 7. The charge-sheet has also been filed by the police after investigation and cognizance has also been taken against the husband of the complainant by order dated 8.12.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, which has also been brought on record. 7. In that view of the matter, it is apparent that the present complaint petition has been filed against the petitioner, who is a Government servant, by the complainant with a mala fide intention and ulterior motive for wreaking the vengeance on the petitioner, due to private and personal grudge, as her husband has been made accused in Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 588 of 2007 by this petitioner. At the same time there is all probability that this complaint has been filed in order to deter the petitioner from persuing the criminal case filed against the husband of the complainant so that the petitioner may be brought to the compromising terms and not to• support the prosecution case during trial, which if allowed, shall be the sheer misuse of the process of the court. It is a well settled principle of law that if a criminal case is filed with ulterior motive and mala fide intention only for wreaking vengeance on the accused with a view to spite him due 'to private and personal grudge, the same may be quashed at the initial stage by the High Court in exercise •of extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, or in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in order to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. Reference in this connection may be had to the decision of the Supreme Court of India in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors., reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, which has also be followed in Pratibha vs. Rameswari Devi & Ors., reported in (2007)12 SCC 369 . 8. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the Court below rejecting the application for discharge filed by the petitioner, is absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 8. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the Court below rejecting the application for discharge filed by the petitioner, is absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. I also find the case to be one just and appropriate in which this Court should exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the criminal proceeding against the petitioner at this initial stage, in order to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. 9. In view of the aforementioned discussions, the impugned order dated 13.12.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st, Dhanbad, in C.P. No. 970 of 2009, is hereby set aside, and the entire proceeding against the petitioner in the said C.P. No. 970 of 2009 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st, Dhanbad, is hereby quashed. Consequently, the petitioner stands discharged. This application is accordingly, allowed.