Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 679 (JHR)

Bhola Nath Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2014-07-01

H.C.MISHRA

body2014
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 22.8.2013 passed by Sri Arjun Saw, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bokaro, in C.P. Case No. 445 of 2013, whereby upon enquiry, the Court below has found prime facie offences under Sections 323, 341, 506, 387/34 IPC against the accused persons, including the petitioner, and has directed for issuance of summons against them for facing the trial. 3. The complaint case was filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, which was registered as C.P. Case No. 445 of 2013. The complainant, who is a Medical Practitioner and running a Nursing Home, viz., Raj Nursing Home, at Jena More. P.S.- Jaridih, District- Bokaro, filed the complaint against the petitioner (who is described as accused No.1) and other co-accused persons, stating that the accused persons were his employees and there was some dispute between them and the matter was brought before the DLSA, Bokaro, by the accused persons for extraction of money, in which, the complainant protested and disagreed for any settlement. Thereafter the accused persons abused the complainant outside the Lok Adalat, Bokaro and accused No. 2 inflicted fists and slaps upon the complainant. It is alleged that the accused persons were threatening the complainant for whimsical demand of Rs. 1,52,000/- which they were demanding as rangdari from the complainant. It is alleged that the petitioner sent a legal notice on 3.4.2013 to the complainant and from the said legal notice, the complainant learnt that a cheque No. 160131 of United Bank of India, Jena More Branch, had been wrongly used by the accused persons, as the said cheque of the complainant was missing, which was used by the accused persons with false signature of the complainant. It is alleged that on 16.4.2013, the car of the complainant was intercepted by four motorcycles upon which all the accused persons along with three miscreants were there, they stopped the car and accused No. 2 brought out a Bhujali and placed at the throat of the complainant and demanded money from the complainant, who was also assaulted by the accused Nos. 3 and 4 and other co-accused persons and it is alleged that the petitioner threatened the complainant of killing him, whereupon he gave Rs. 3 and 4 and other co-accused persons and it is alleged that the petitioner threatened the complainant of killing him, whereupon he gave Rs. 5300/- and gold chain and ear rings of his wife to accused Nos. 2 and 4 respectively. Mainly with these allegations, the complaint petition was filed in the Court below. 4. It appears that the statement of the complainant was recorded on solemn affirmation and the statements of three witnesses were recorded at the inquiry stage, who supported the case of the complainant, on the basis of which, the Court below found prime facie offence against the petitioner and other co-accused persons for the offences under sections 323, 341, 506, 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is also a Medical Practitioner and he was working under the complainant in his Nursing Home, but the petitioner and other employees were not paid their monetary dues, for which there was dispute between them, as in all Rs. 1,52,000/- was due to the petitioner and other co-employees of the Nursing Home. The matter was taken to the DLSA, Bokaro, and ultimately the complainant issued a cheque for Rs. 1,52,000/-. When the said cheque was presented in the Bank for encashment, the same was dishonoured. Accordingly, a legal notice was sent to the complainant by the petitioner, whereupon, the present case was filed by the complainant against the petitioner and other employees. It is also submitted that a complaint case was filed by the petitioner also for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which is pending against the complainant. Learned counsel submitted that this is a case of malicious prosecution against the petitioner and accordingly, it is a fit case in which the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioner should be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the complainant opposite party No. 2, on the other hand, have opposed the prayer and have submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and the co-accused persons of demand of rangdari, threatening and assaulting the complainant and of taking away the cash and the ornaments, which have been supported by the complainant and witnesses during the inquiry. Accordingly, the prime facie offence is clearly made out against the petitioner and other co-accused persons and there is no illegality in the impugned order. 7. From perusal of the compliant, as also from the statement of the complainant, recorded on solemn affirmation, which has been brought on record, it is apparent that prior to the institution of this case, the complainant had received the notice regarding dishonour of the cheque of Rs. 1,52,000/-, though it is the case of the complainant that the said cheque was missing, which has been used by the accused persons. It is also apparent from the complaint petition itself that the accused persons were earlier the employees of the complainant. It also finds mentioned in the complaint petition itself that dispute between the complainant and the accused persons was also brought before the DLSA, Bokaro, and there was some talk of settlement of the said dispute, which was not agreed upon by the complainant. Thus, there appears to be substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that dues of the employees, including of the petitioner were not being paid by the complainant, for which, the matter was brought before the DLSA, Bokaro, which could not be settled. Subsequently, it appears that the cheque said to be issued by the complainant got dishonoured and the legal notice was also issued to the complainant for realisation of Rs. 1,52,000/- which fact finds mentioned in the complaint petition itself. Thus, there is substance in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint case has been filed with malicious intention to wreck vengeance against the accused persons due to the dispute of the monetary dues between them. It is apparent from the complaint petition itself that there is allegation of demand of rangdari by the accused persons of Rs. 1,52,000, which apparently appears to be false, as if any rangdari will be demanded, the amount normally would not be Rs. 1,52,000/-, it may be Rs. 1,50,000/- or 2,00,000/-, but in no case, it would be Rs. 1,52,000/-. 8. In State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors., as reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the law has been laid down by the Supreme Court of India as follows:- “102. 1,52,000/-, it may be Rs. 1,50,000/- or 2,00,000/-, but in no case, it would be Rs. 1,52,000/-. 8. In State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors., as reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the law has been laid down by the Supreme Court of India as follows:- “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) ********* (2) ********* (3) ********* (4) ********* (5) ********* (6) ********* (7) Where a 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 view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India, as also in view of the fact that prime facie this case appears to be filed against the petitioner by the complainant for wrecking vengeance against him with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, for demand of his dues, for which, the matter was also brought before the DLSA, Bokaro, and a legal notice was also sent to the complainant, when the cheque said to be issued by the complainant for Rs. 1,52,000/- bounced, I am of the considered view that it is a fit for exercising the inherent powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and to quash the criminal proceeding against the petitioner, in the interest of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of law. 10. 1,52,000/- bounced, I am of the considered view that it is a fit for exercising the inherent powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and to quash the criminal proceeding against the petitioner, in the interest of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of law. 10. Consequently, the impugned order dated 22.8.2013 passed by Sri Arjun Saw, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bokaro, in C.P. Case No. 445 of 2013, as also the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner Bhola Nath Mahto, in the said complaint case are, hereby, quashed. 11. This application is accordingly, allowed.