Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1045 (JHR)

Ajim Khan v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-05-13

AMITAV K.GUPTA

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. This writ application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Dhanwar P.S Case No. 69 of 2018 (GR 607/2018) registered under Section 452, 341, 342, 379, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on 06.02.2018 in between 11:00 a.m to 2:00 p.m Ramlal Oraon, a Police Officer, of Dhanwar P.S. along with 20-25 persons came and demolished the wall of the house of petitioners and misbehaved with his family members. The said police official in connivance and conspiracy with Sabir Khan had demolished the wall of the house of petitioners without obtaining any order of a competent authority. Aggrieved by the illegal act of Ramlal Oraon, petitioner no.2 had filed a complaint against Ramlal Oraon and others as per Annexure-2. 3. The petitioner no.2 had also filed CC 221/2018 dated 08.02.2010 in the court of CJM, Giridih against Ramlal Oraon and other accused and the present case Dhanwar P.S Case No. 69 of 2018 was lodged by Sabir Khan a co-accused, in the complaint case lodged by the petitioners, as a counter-blast to save their skin. The Police Officer and other accused persons have been pressurizing the petitioners to withdraw the complaint case. It is submitted that the investigation of the case, lodged against the petitioner, has been handed over to Ramlal Oraon against whom petitioner no.2 has filed the complaint case. It is submitted that petitioner nos. 3, 6 & 7 were not present at the place the occurrence. They were in Orissa and certificate to that effect has been issued by the employer of petitioner nos. 3 & 7 and petitioner no. 6 was appearing for the examination, as would be evident from Annexure-4 series. 4. It is argued by learned counsel that the instant F.I.R deserves to be quashed as it has been lodged with mala fide intention by the police official of Dhanwar P.S. That the petitioners are law biding persons and they do not have any criminal antecedents. 5. Mr. Lalit Yadav, A.C to S.C (L&C) II has submitted that the investigation is still going and at this stage the investigation cannot be stopped. 6. Heard. 5. Mr. Lalit Yadav, A.C to S.C (L&C) II has submitted that the investigation is still going and at this stage the investigation cannot be stopped. 6. Heard. It is well settled that in exercise of the power under Article 226 or under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the court cannot look into the aspects of mala fide prosecution at the stage of investigation of a case. 7. In K.P.S Gill Case (1995) 6 SCC 194 , it has been observed that:- "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 first information report 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." 8. The petitioners can file the petition/representation before the higher police officials and produce the relevant documents as and when they are summoned under Section 41 A of Cr.P.C. 9. If any representation is filed by the petitioners before the Superintendent of Police, he shall pass necessary order on such representation after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 10. In the result the instant W.P. (Cr.) stands dismissed.