Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 869 (JHR)

V. R. Kochar v. State of Jharkhand

2014-08-13

H.C.MISHRA

body2014
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the complainant opposite party No.2 appearing in Cr.M.P. Nos. 1152 and 1153 of 2004. Learned counsel for complainant opposite party in Cr. Misc. No. 5656 of 2000(R) has not appeared, but in view of the fact that in other cases also, the complainant is the same person, no difference is going to be made by non-appearance of the complainant in one case, as all the cases are similar in nature. 2. All these petitions have been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioners, including the order dated 14.5.1999 passed in Complaint Case No. 139 of 1989, and orders dated 20.7.2004 passed in Complaint Case No. 91 of 1989 and Complaint Case No. 134 of 1989, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag, whereby, prima facie offences under Sections 447 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code have been found against the petitioners. 3. The complainant opposite party filed the complaint cases in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag, which were registered as Complaint Case Nos. 139 of 1989, 91 of 1989 and 134 of 1989. All these complaint cases relate to the same nature of offence, though committed on different dates, and accordingly different complaint cases have been filed. The place of occurrence of all these complaint petitions is the same, i.e., the pond, which the complainant claims to be belonging to him, situated at village Duni, P.S Mandu, District Hazaribag, which is a part and parcel of Khata No. 1 in Plot No. 540, measuring an area of about 3.50 acres of land. 4. The complainant claimed that he had purchased the said property from one Sri Dharmanath Singh and ultimately, the land was also mutated in his favour. There appears to be other civil dispute and also a criminal proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C., between both the parties, relating to the same land. 4. The complainant claimed that he had purchased the said property from one Sri Dharmanath Singh and ultimately, the land was also mutated in his favour. There appears to be other civil dispute and also a criminal proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C., between both the parties, relating to the same land. So far as the present cases are concerned, it is stated that the complainant, being the owner of the land, is the owner of slurry / dust deposited at the place of occurrence, discharged from the coal washeries of the TISCO Ltd., and on the dates of occurrence, it is alleged that the accused persons having conspired along with one TYCOON Company and their representatives, agents and workmen, and without the consent of the complainant, deliberately removed the slurries belonging to the complainant from the said land. The value of the allegedly stolen slurry has been claimed to be Rs.26,55,120/- in Complaint Case No. 139 of 1989, Rs. 15,30,000/- in Complaint Case No. 91 of 1989 and Rs. 4,14,400/- in Complaint Case No. 134 of 1989. Alleging that the accused persons had trespassed over the land of the complainant and had committed the theft of the property belonging to the complainant, the complaint cases were filed against the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on the same allegation, another complaint was filed, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 305 of 1989, and the prima facie offence under the same sections of the IPC, found therein against the petitioners was challenged by the petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 6458 of 2000(R). It is submitted that after hearing both the parties, and taking into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Coking Coal Limited Vs. Misc. No. 6458 of 2000(R). It is submitted that after hearing both the parties, and taking into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Coking Coal Limited Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (1990) 4 SCC 557 , laying down that coal slurries are admittedly the small particles of coal escape from the washery plant, as it continues to be carbonaceous in character having all the elements of coal, as also taking into consideration the definitions of theft and criminal trespass, it was held by this Court by judgment dated 12.4.2013 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 6458 of 2000(R), that since the slurry is coal in liquid form and is mineral, the TISCO Ltd., being the owner of the mineral, continued to be the owner of the mineral even after their escape to the land of the complainant from their washeries and the petitioners, being the officials of the TISCO Ltd., were entitled to remove the slurry, i.e., the mineral from the land, even if the land belonged to the complainant. It was held in that case that there was complete lack of any dishonest intention on part of the petitioners in removing their own property, which is the essential ingredient of commission of theft. It was also held that even the offence of criminal trespass was not made out against the petitioners, as the petitioners had allegedly entered upon the land of the complainant, if any, in order to remove their own property, and not for committing any offence. Taking into consideration that there were civil disputes between both the parties with respect to the land in question including the title suit, this Court came to the conclusion that it was a fit case for exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners in Complaint Case No. 305 of 1989, and that was done accordingly. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present cases are also fully covered by the said judgment, as with the same allegations and with respect to the same property, different cases have been filed by the same complainant against the petitioners. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that the impugned orders finding prima facie offence under Sections 379 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioners, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 6. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that the impugned orders finding prima facie offence under Sections 379 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioners, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 6. Learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the complainant opposite party have opposed the prayer submitting that the offence is clearly made out against the petitioners, inasmuch as, there is allegation against the petitioners to have removed the slurry from the land of the complainant. However, it is admitted that after hearing for both the parties, the aforesaid judgment dated 12.4.2013 was passed by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 6458 of 2000(R). 7. In view of the aforementioned discussions, I find that all these cases are fully covered by the judgment dated 12.4.2013 passed in Cr.Misc. No. 6458 of 2000(R), as the same allegations are involved against the petitioners relating to the same property, filed by the same complainant. Accordingly, the criminal prosecution against the petitioners in the present cases also cannot be allowed to continue. 8. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 14.5.1999 in Complaint Case No. 139 of 1989 and similar orders dated 20.7.2004 in Complaint Case Nos. 91 of 1989 and 134 of 1989, passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag, as also the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioners in the said complaint cases, are hereby, quashed. Consequently, all these applications are accordingly, allowed.