Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 891 (JHR)

Birendra Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2015-07-30

H.C.MISHRA

body2015
Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.7.1991 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, in C.P Case No.241 of 1990, whereby, on the basis of complaint, the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statements of the witnesses examined at the enquiry stage, the prima facie offence under Sections 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code was found against the petitioner and the other co-accused persons. The petitioner has also challenged the entire criminal proceeding in the said C.P. Case No. 241 of 1990. 3. The complaint petition has been brought on record as Annexure-1, which shows that there is allegation against the petitioner, being a Forester, and the other accused persons, being the Forest Guards to have forcibly taken away the truck, bearing registration No. WMH-8720, after scolding and assaulting the complainant by fists and slaps, who was the driver of the said truck. Stating that the truck was a commercial vehicle and by the action of the accused persons, the owner as well as the complainant had suffered loss, the complaint case was filed. The statement of the complainant was recorded on solemn affirmation, in which, the complainant supported the case and it appears that some witnesses were also examined by the complainant in the enquiry stage, on the basis of which, the prima facie offence was found against the petitioner by the impugned order dated 11.7.1991, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner who was one of the accused, and has been described in the complaint petition as a Forester, has filed the present application for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against him. It also appears from the record that notice was issued to the complainant-opposite party No.2, but in spite of several notices sent to him, the same could not be served upon him and the service reports show that the complainant was not available at the address given by him in the complaint petition. The dasti summon was also issued and the service report has been brought on record with the same endorsement that he was not found at the address given in the complaint petition and the service report is also witnessed by two local witnesses. 5. The dasti summon was also issued and the service report has been brought on record with the same endorsement that he was not found at the address given in the complaint petition and the service report is also witnessed by two local witnesses. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the truck in question was found to be involved in offence under the Forest Act, and accordingly, the same was seized. It is further submitted that for the confiscation of the said truck, the Confiscation Case No. 1 of 1990 was initiated and the notice was also issued to the driver and the owner of the truck, which has been brought on record as Annexure 2, to the present application. It is further submitted that by order dated 25.5.1993 passed in Confiscation Case No. 1 of 1990, the said truck was ultimately confiscated by the competent authority. The said order has been brought on record as Annexure-3. It is the case of the petitioner that ultimately, the truck in question was released in favour of the owner of the truck by this Court by order dated 23.11.1990 passed in CWJC No.137 of 1990 (R ). The said order has also been brought on record as Annexure -4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of all these orders, it is apparent that the petitioner was maliciously implicated in this case with absolutely false allegations, and it is a fit case for exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that on the basis of materials on record, the offence is made out against the petitioner. 7. Having heard the learned counsels for both sides and upon going through the record, I find that in the complaint petition itself, the petitioner has been described as Forester and the other co-accused persons have also been described as Forest Guards. 7. Having heard the learned counsels for both sides and upon going through the record, I find that in the complaint petition itself, the petitioner has been described as Forester and the other co-accused persons have also been described as Forest Guards. Though the complainant has supported his case in his statement recorded on solemn affirmation, but the fact remains that the Court below ought to have put some Court questions as to the circumstances in which the truck was taken away by the Forester and the Forest Guards, but this was not done by the Court below, and the prima facie offence was found against the petitioner. The documents brought on record clearly show that the truck in question was confiscated by the competent authority as it was involved in an offence and ultimately, under the orders of this Court the truck was released in favour of the owner. 8. In the backdrop of these facts, I am of the considered view that the complaint petition was lodged by the complainant with malicious intention in order to wreck vengeance against the petitioner, with ex facie false allegations and this is a fit case for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.7.1991 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, in C.P Case No. 241 of 1990, as also the entire criminal proceeding in the said case, so far as it relates to the petitioner only, are hereby, quashed. Consequently, this application stands allowed.