Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 203 (JHR)

Nawal Kishore Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2015-02-06

H.C.MISHRA

body2015
JUDGMENT H.C. MISHRA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the private respondent No. 4. 2. This writ application has been field for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners in Giridih (M) P.S. Case No. 143 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 1110 of 2011, arising out of C.P. Case No. 666 of 2011, which was instituted for the offence under Sections 147, 341, 323, 394 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act. 3. From perusal of the record, it appears that the complaint, being C.P. Case No. 666 of 2011, was filed by the complainant respondent No. 4 in the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, against these petitioners. There is allegation against the petitioners of assaulting the complainant and taking away his cash and ornament. The said case was sent for institution of the police case under Section 156 (3) of the Cr. P.C., on the basis of which, Giridih (M) P.S. Case No. 143 of 2011 was instituted and investigation was taken up. The petitioners thereafter filed this application for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against them in the said case. It is apparent from the record that there was previous enmity between the parties and there are criminal cases between both the parties, filed against each other. 4. This Court, by order dated 23.12.2011 had directed for taking no coercive step against these petitioners in the said criminal case, and again by order dated 21.3.2014, it was clarified that the investigation was not directed to be stayed, and therefore, the State was directed to file an affidavit to acquaint this Court with the up-to-date stage of investigation. Again by order dated 14.11.2014, the Superintendent of Police, Giridih, was directed to ensure that the investigation of the case was concluded by 15th of January, 2015 ensuring the timely and impartial investigation in the matter. It appears that pursuant thereto, the investigation was completed and the charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners is vitiated as there was previous enmity between the parties and several ceases have been filed against the petitioners by the said complainant. It appears that pursuant thereto, the investigation was completed and the charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners is vitiated as there was previous enmity between the parties and several ceases have been filed against the petitioners by the said complainant. It shall not out of the place to mention here that admittedly, the cases have been filed by the petitioners' side also against the complainant and as such there are criminal cases between the parties filed by each other. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and Others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, (1992) Supp 1 SCC 335, has submitted that the present case is a glaring example of malicious prosecution against the petitioners and accordingly, it is fit case for quashing the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court towards the case diary, from which, it appears that at one point of time, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who had supervised the matter, in his supervision note, stated that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case, but the Superintendent of Police, Giridih, disagreed with the supervision note of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, stating that the supervision note was cryptic one and directed to further investigation on certain points. Thereafter again the matter was placed before the Superintendent of Police and on the basis of his supervision note, charge-sheet has been submitted in the present case. Learned counsel has also pointed out that some witnesses have stated that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case, and accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel, that it is a fit case for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners. 8. Learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the private respondent No. 4 have opposed the prayer. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has pointed out that the witnesses have also supported the prosecution case and ultimately, the Superintendent of Police in his supervisory note has taken into consideration the entire investigation and has found the prosecution case to be true and accordingly, charge-sheet has been submitted in this case against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has pointed out that the witnesses have also supported the prosecution case and ultimately, the Superintendent of Police in his supervisory note has taken into consideration the entire investigation and has found the prosecution case to be true and accordingly, charge-sheet has been submitted in this case against the petitioners. It is also submitted that no case is made out for quashing the criminal proceeding against the petitioners at this stage. 9. Though, learned counsels for both the sides tried to draw the attention of this Court towards the statements of the various witnesses, recorded during investigation of the case, I am deliberately not referring to those statements, as it would amount to assume the supervisory authority in the investigation of the case, which this Court must not. Suffice would be to say that taking into consideration the dispute between the parties, this Court had directed the Investigating Officer and Superintendent of Police, Giridih, to get the matter investigated at the earliest, ensuring the timely and impartial investigation in the matter. Finally, on the basis of the supervision made by the Superintendent of Police, Giridih, the charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. 10. As regards the stand of learned counsel for the petitioners that this is a case of malicious prosecution against the petitioners due to previous enmity between the parties, I am of the considered view that the enmity cuts both ways and at this stage, particularly when after the direction of this Court, a responsible officer, the Superintendent of Police, himself has found the case to be true against the petitioners, it cannot be prima facie said to be a case of malicious prosecution at this stage. 11. In Bhajan Lal's case (supra), the Apex Court has laid down the categories of cases by way of illustration, in which in exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code, the criminal proceeding may be quashed either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, which includes a malicious prosecution, but the Apex Court has also given a note of caution as follows:- “109. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 12. In view of the discussions made above, I do not find it to be an appropriate case to quash the criminal proceeding against the petitioners at this stage. There is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly, dismissed.