Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1672 (JHR)

Nosekha Khan v. State of Jharkhand

2016-12-15

S.N.PATHAK

body2016
Order : Heard the parties. 2. This Cr. M.P. has been filed with a prayer to quash the first information report including the investigation in connection with Barhi P.S. Case No. 214 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2842 of 2014, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 4(A), (B) & (D) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 and Sections 47/49 of the Animal Cruelty Act. 3. The facts of the case in brief is that the Officer-in-Charge, Barhi P.S. recorded his self-statement alleging therein that he alongwith other police personnel were on patrolling duty at night on 11.07.2014. In course of patrolling at about 10:00 p.m. he received secret information that one truck loaded with cattle has dashed one person at Dhamna More and on account of the said accident, one person died. Having received this information, the informant along with other police personnel reached at the place of occurrence and found one dead body lying on G.T. Road. He also found that one truck bearing Reg. No. JH-02N-4822 was met with the accident. In the said accident, the truck turned turtle and some cattle died whereas some sustained injuries. Thereafter, the said truck as well as the cattle were seized in presence of witnesses and since, the truck belonged to this petitioner, instant case was lodged against the petitioner and others. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submit that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence, as alleged by the informant and he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of false and concocted story. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the truck bearing Reg. No. JH-02N-4822. The said truck met with an accident at G.T. Road and thereafter, the driver of the truck intimated the petitioner about the accident. The petitioner immediately informed about the accident to the local police and also submitted all the papers with respect to the vehicle as well as with respect to cattle loaded on the truck. However, since the police has already registered a case against the petitioner, they have denied to accept papers submitted by the petitioner and advised him to knock the door of the Court. However, since the police has already registered a case against the petitioner, they have denied to accept papers submitted by the petitioner and advised him to knock the door of the Court. It is also pertinent to mention here that for the said accident an F.I.R. being Barhi P.S. Case No. 213 of 2014 has already been registered against the driver of the truck. There is no evidence, which could suggest that the truck loaded with cattle were transported from one State to any other State and hence, no case under Sections 4(A), (B) & (D) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 is made out against the petitioner. It further submitted that the one Bishwanat Choudhary hired the truck of the petitioner through a transport Agency, namely, G.N.P. Carrier for transportation of the cattle purchased by him from Garhwa. The petitioner accepted to transport the cattle on the basis of documents furnished by the said Bishwanath Choudhary, i.e. the receipt issued by the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Garhwa and challan of G.N.P. Carrier. The papers issued by Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Garhwa would suggest that the cattle were purchased from Garhwa and were being transported to Dhanbad that is within the State of Jharkhand and as such, no case under the provisions of Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act is made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that from perusal the aforesaid facts it is crystal clear that no offence under Sections 47/49 of the Animal Cruelty Act is made out against the petitioner as transportation of animal on the truck does not come under the purview of cruelty. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that grounds taken for quashing of the F.I.R. including the investigation are not tenable. It is submitted that the present F.I.R. has been instituted on the basis of self-statement of the Officer-in-Charge, Barhi P.S. In his self-statement the Officer-in-charge of Barhi P.S. has stated that he alongwith other police personnel were on patrolling duty at night of 11.07.2014. In course of patrolling at about 10:00 p.m. he received a secret information that one truck loaded with cattle has dashed one person at Dhamna More, who died at the spot. In course of patrolling at about 10:00 p.m. he received a secret information that one truck loaded with cattle has dashed one person at Dhamna More, who died at the spot. Having received this information, the informant along with other police personnel reached at the place of occurrence and found one dead body lying on G.T. Road. He also found that one truck bearing Reg. No. JH-02N-4822 was met with the accident and some cattle died whereas some sustained injuries. Upon perusing the papers of the said truck he found that the owner of the truck was the petitioner. Hence, the Officer-in-Charge has lodged the instant F.I.R. against the petitioner and others. 6. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and the documents available on record, I am of the view that no ground of malicious prosecution or vengeance has been brought on record nor the petitioners have been able to discard the prima facie materials against them. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its various judgments has discussed the issue involved in this case. In the case of Mosiruddin Munshi v. Mohd. Siraj & Anr.; (2014) 14 SCC 29 in Para 6, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:- “The legal position with regard to exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court for quashing the first informant report is now well settled. It is not necessary for us to delve deep thereinto as the propositions of the law have been stated by the Court in R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta in the following terms:(SCC p.523, para 15) “15. Propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are: (1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence. (2) For the said purpose the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence. (3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly, if the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the Court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus. (4). (3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly, if the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the Court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus. (4). If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue.” In the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the issue fell before the Apex Court as to when the criminal proceeding can be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Court held as under in paragraphs 68, 71 and 103 of the said Judgment: “68. Mr. Chidambaram took a strong objection stating that these untested allegations are introduced only to prejudice the court and, therefore, the court should refrain from considering these allegations. We may straightway say that we do not take note of these new allegations as we are not called upon at this stage to embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the first information report are reliable or not and thereupon to render a finding whether any of the allegations is proved. These are matters which can be examined only by the concerned court after the entire materials are placed before it on a thorough investigation. 71. While Mr. Rajinder Sachar and Mr. Garg took much pain to show that the reasons given by the High Court in respect of each of the instances are not legally sustainable, Mr. Parasaran submitted a tabular statement by listing out each of the instances of the alleged corruption indicted in the complaint, the explanation given in the writ petition as well as in the counter affidavit related thereto and the reply in the rejoinder and urged that the allegations in the FIR are nothing but a conglomeration of calumny and falsehood. Parasaran submitted a tabular statement by listing out each of the instances of the alleged corruption indicted in the complaint, the explanation given in the writ petition as well as in the counter affidavit related thereto and the reply in the rejoinder and urged that the allegations in the FIR are nothing but a conglomeration of calumny and falsehood. As the entire matter stands only at the stage of the registration of the case and the investigation has not at all proceeded with on account of the order of stay granted by the High Court, we do not intend or propose to examine the truth or otherwise of each of the instances in snippet form and thereafter string them together and express any opinion either way, since in our view any such opinion may affect the case of either party or cripple the course of investigation. 103. 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 FIR 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.” The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Amanullah v. State of Bihar; (2016) 6 SCC 699 held as under:- “A careful reading of the material placed on record reveals that the learned CJM took cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused persons after a perusal of the case diary, charge-sheet and other material placed before the court. The cognizance was taken, as a prima facie case was made out against the accused persons. It is well settled that at the stage of taking cognizance, the court should not get into the merits of the case made out by the police, in the charge-sheet filed by them, with a view to calculate the success rate of prosecution in that particular case. It is well settled that at the stage of taking cognizance, the court should not get into the merits of the case made out by the police, in the charge-sheet filed by them, with a view to calculate the success rate of prosecution in that particular case. At this stage, the court's duty is limited to the extent of finding out whether from the material placed before it, the offence alleged therein against the accused is made out or not with a view to proceed further with the case.” The Hon'ble Apex Court in another case Binod Kumar v. State of Bihar; (2014) 10 SCC 663 held as under:- “In proceedings instituted on the criminal complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous. It is well settled that the power under Section 482 CrPC should be sparingly invoked with circumspection, it should be exercised to see that the process of law is not abused or misused. The settled principle of law is that at the stage of quashing the complaint/FIR, the High Court is not to embark upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or the genuineness of the allegations made therein.” 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and also the discussions made above, I do not find any merit in the instant Cr.M.P. and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. The trial Court is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. Petitioner is also at liberty to raise all such points at the appropriate stage.