Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1326 (JHR)

Pawan Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2019-07-23

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2019
ORDER : Heard Mr. Pawan Kumar, in person and Mr. Arun Kumar learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Jagarnathpur P. S. Case No. 149 of 2016 including the order dated 26.04.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi by which cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Section 323 & 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that on the date of occurrence at about 2:00 O’ clock, the informant along with his father and other staffs of the petitioner – office namely, Baijnath Prasad, Suresh Gope, Ram Kumar Singh and Kishore Thakur had come. It is alleged that since the transfer order issued was cancelled, the said persons had gone to the office to seek information from the accused at which, the accused started abusing them. On an objection being raised, a scuffle took place and the accused had stated that since he had not received any order as such they could not join in the office. It has further been alleged that the accused had also demanded some amount for the purpose of their joining and had also stated that the informant and others must support the accused in his endeavour to take money from the contractor. It has further been alleged that the accused had with an intention to commit murder assaulted Suresh Gope which resulted in his suffering injuries. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Jagarnathpur P. S. Case No. 149 of 2016 was instituted on 03.05.2016 at 6:00 P.M. for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 504 of I.P.C. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 29.03.2017 for a non-cognizable offence under Sections 323 & 504 of I.P.C. and consequent thereto vide order dated 26.04.2017, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi had been pleased to take cognizance for the offences under Sections 323/504 I.P.C. 5. It has been stated by the petitioner in person that, institution of Jagarnathpur P. S. Case No. 149 of 2016 is by way of a retaliation to Jagarnathpur P. S. Case No. 148 of 2016 which was instituted by the petitioner against several persons on account of a brutal assault made upon the petitioner in a drunken state. It has been stated by the petitioner in person that, institution of Jagarnathpur P. S. Case No. 149 of 2016 is by way of a retaliation to Jagarnathpur P. S. Case No. 148 of 2016 which was instituted by the petitioner against several persons on account of a brutal assault made upon the petitioner in a drunken state. It has been stated that the petitioner was the Labour Enforcement Officer, (Central) at Regional Labour Commissioner Office, Ranchi and the informant was one of the staff of the office. It has further been stated that the actual incident was witnessed by one of the staff of the petitioners namely, Jerka Munda and in fact the petitioner was at the receiving end at the hand of the accused persons which led to institution of Jagarnathpur P. S. Case No. 148 of 2016 and only to save their own skin, the subsequent case has been lodged which is the subject matter of the present application. It has further been submitted that charge-sheet was submitted only under Sections 323 & 504 of I.P.C. and the allegations made of an attempt to murder against the petitioner has been proved to be false. The petitioner further submits that it is a case of malicious prosecution as would be apparent from the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submits that in the case which has been instituted by him, there has been manipulation and the investigating officer has been influenced which did not lead to a proper investigation in Jagarnathpur P. S. Case No. 148 of 2016. 6. Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 on the other hand has submitted that prima-facie, the allegation against the petitioner were found to be true which led the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi to take cognizance for the offences under Sections 323 & 504 of I.P.C. It has been stated that merely because the petitioner had instituted a case earlier to the case instituted by the informant, the same would not lead to quashment of the subsequent FIR in view of the nature of allegations as well as the element of criminality present in the act of the petitioner. 7. 7. It is an admitted fact that two cases were instituted – one by the petitioner being Jagarnathpur P. S. Case No. 148 of 2016 which was registered at 4:30 P.M. on 03.05.2016 and subsequent thereto, Jagarnathpur P. S. Case No. 149 of 2016 was instituted against the petitioner which was registered at 6:00 P.M. on 03.05.2016 itself. It is to be seen from the facts and circumstances of the case as to whether there has been an attempt made by the informant to maliciously prosecute the petitioner or whether from the face of the record, there appears to be a prima-facie case made out against the petitioner. From both the First Information Reports what appears is an incident which had taken place concerning some dispute between the petitioner and the four staffs employed in the office of the Regional Labour Commissioner. In the FIR instituted by the petitioner, it had been alleged that the said four staffs namely, Suresh Gope, Ram Kumar Singh and Kishore Thakur and Baijnath Prasad were not coming to the office since Thursday and the petitioner was also prevented from working by use of abusive language. Since the petitioner was being heckled on the date of occurrence, he had managed to place himself at the Mahindra Next Gen Showroom, but at that place also all the four staffs had entered and assaulted the petitioner apart from trying to strangulate him. The petitioner had alleged that all four were in a drunken state. The FIR instituted by the petitioner was immediately registered on 03.05.2016 at 4:30 P.M. Subsequent thereto at 6:00 P.M., Jagarnathpur P. S. Case No. 149 of 2016 was instituted by Rajeeva Prasad stating various allegations as has been enumerated herein before. The incident which had occurred according to the version of the informant is with respect to the stay of the transfer order and since all the four persons had come to join, they were prevented as per the allegations by the petitioners in joining and the subsequent insinuations which have been cast against the petitioner. The incident which had occurred according to the version of the informant is with respect to the stay of the transfer order and since all the four persons had come to join, they were prevented as per the allegations by the petitioners in joining and the subsequent insinuations which have been cast against the petitioner. The allegation of brutal assault made upon Suresh Gope by the petitioner seems to have been a baseless allegation as police had submitted charge-sheet only for offences under Sections 323 & 504 of I.P.C. The petitioner was a Labour Enforcement Officer, Central who was posted in the Regional Labour Commissioner Office, Ranchi and it appears from the First Information Reports that disgruntled official staffs had got the FIR registered against the petitioner, which is a counter blast to the Jagarnathpur P. S. Case No. 148 of 2016. It also appears that in the investigation not much importance was placed on one of the key eye-witness namely, Jerka Munda who is a Lower Division Clerk and who had given a written statement. 8. In the case of “State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal” reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the following conditions were laid down in which the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.: 102. “In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 9. As would be apparent from the factual aspects of the case, all the persons who were abused including one Suresh Gope who was assaulted by the petitioner were all initially engaged in the office of Regional Labour Commissioner and the incident, even if the version of the prosecution is taken to be true, had occurred due to a stay on the transfer of some of the staffs. Therefore, an element of official dissent also seems to be the primary factor which had led to institution of Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 149 of 2016. The subsequent FIR therefore can be concluded to be a malicious prosecution on account of institution of the earlier FIR by the petitioner and in absence of there being any of the ingredients which would entail prosecution of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 323/504 of I.P.C., the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner will be an abuse of the process of Court and will amount to a miscarriage of justice. 10. Accordingly, in view of what has been stated above, this application stands allowed and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Jagarnathpur P. S. Case No. 149 of 2016 including the order dated 26.04.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi by which cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Section 323 & 504 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and set aside. 11. This application stands allowed.