Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1023 (JHR)

Raja Acharji v. State of Jharkhand

2014-10-08

P.P.BHATT

body2014
JUDGMENT P.P. BHATT, J. 1. The present application is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 12.6.2001 whereby the learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro at Chas has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons including the petitioners herein in connection with C.P. Case No. 78 of 2001. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned court below has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons including the present petitioners in C.P. Case No. 78 of 2001 without proper application of mind and without considering the fact that the complainant does not disclose any offence of criminal nature and no case is made out against the present petitioners and dispute whatsoever is there of civil in nature. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in a Cr. M.P. No. 4653 of 2001 filed by the accused persons no. 1 and 2, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances involved in the said case, was pleased to quash the order of taking cognizance of the offence punishable under sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code in C.P. Case No. 78 of 2001 qua the accused persons no. 1 and 2. It is further submitted that the case of the present petitioners is also similar to that of the accused persons of Cr. M.P. No. 4653 of 2001. Learned counsel for the petitioners by referring the averments made in the complain petition submitted that the allegations made against all the accused persons are general in nature. So far as accused nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has already quashed the order of taking cognizance of the offence punishable under sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code in C.P. Case No. 78 of 2001 as per order dated 26th April, 2012 passed in Cr. M.P. No. 4653 of 2001. 4. In support of her submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners by referring paragraphs no. M.P. No. 4653 of 2001. 4. In support of her submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners by referring paragraphs no. 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 has relied on the decision rendered in the case of Dalip Kaur and Others vs. Jagnar Singh and Another, (2009) 14 SCC 696 and she has further relied on the decision rendered in the case of V.P. Shrivastava vs. Indian Explosive Limited and Others, (2010) SCC 361. It is submitted that the case of the present petitioners is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions. 5. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submitted that on bare reading of the complain petition it appears that prima facie ingredients of Sections 406/420/120B are found against the present petitioners and therefore, the learned court below has rightly and properly taken cognizance against them. However, the learned A.P.P. has not disputed the fact regarding quashing of the order of taking cognizance in respect of the accused persons no. 1 and 2 in Cr. M.P. No. 4653 of 2001 against whom allegation are found similar in nature which were also made in C.P. Case No. 78 of 2001 against the present petitioners. 6. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case it appears that the learned court below has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners. It further appears that in respect of accused persons no. 1 and 2 in Cr. M.P. No. 4653 of 2001, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case, has quashed the order of taking cognizance passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro Chas in C.P. Case No. 78 of 2001.On perusal of the averments made in the complain petition it appears that allegations are almost similar in nature to that of the allegation which are made against the accused persons no. 1 and 2. From perusal of the complain petition it appears that accused no.1 is the Managing Director of SBEC Sugar Ltd, accused no.2 Senior Manger, accused no.3 Regional Sales Manager (East) and accused no.4 is the General Manager, Sales SBEC Sugar Ltd. In view of the order passed in Cr. 1 and 2. From perusal of the complain petition it appears that accused no.1 is the Managing Director of SBEC Sugar Ltd, accused no.2 Senior Manger, accused no.3 Regional Sales Manager (East) and accused no.4 is the General Manager, Sales SBEC Sugar Ltd. In view of the order passed in Cr. M.P. No. 4653 of 2001 and also in view of the decision as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the Case of V.P. Shrivastava vs. Indian Explosive Limited and Others, (2010) SCC 361, it appears that in the present case the grievance of the complainant may not survive any more as the security deposit amount has been returned and virtually the matter has been amicable settled. Under the circumstances, the order taking cognizance dated 12.6.2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro at Chas in connection with C.P. Case No. 78 of 2001 against the petitioners is hereby ordered to be quashed.