Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 401 (JHR)

Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2022-04-05

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2022
JUDGMENT : By order dated 22.06.2017 notice has been issued upon the O.P. No. 2. Notice has been validly served upon the O.P. No. 2. Name of the counsel for the O.P. No. 2 is appearing. 2. On repeated calls, nobody appeared on behalf of O.P. No. 2. The matter is of the year, 2017. Accordingly, this matter is being heard on merit. 3. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioners assisted by Mr. Lal Vikram Nath Shahdeo, learned counsel and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the State. 4. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance date 09.12.2016 passed by the learned C.J.M., Chaibasa in connection with G.R. Case No. 538 of 2015, pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Chaibasa. 5. The O.P. No. 2 has filed complaint case stating therein that he is Principal of Padmawati Jain Shishu Vidya Mandir, Chaibasa. Accused No. 20, Vidya Vikas Samity, Ranchi is a society for the purpose of training of the recruited teacher on payment basis and other accused nos. 1 to 19 are directly and indirectly associated with accused no. 20. It is further alleged that on 08.08.2015 at about 3 P.M. the accused persons named in serial nos. 1 to 19 all associate of accused no. 20 besides other accused persons entered into the official chamber of the complainant situated at Premises of Padmawati Jain Sarswati Shishu Vidya Mandir, Chaibasa by breaking all security channel and on the point of pistol, they took blank signature over more than 100 blank pages as well as signature over few stamp papers and blank cheques and snatched cash amount of Rs.15,000/- from the pocket of the complainant and Rs. 1 lakh from the chamber’s lock. The complainant somehow saved his life. The accused persons threatened the complainant for dire consequence. It is further alleged that on 08.08.2015 all the accused persons by breaking lock of main gate of school building, school auditorium/hall, 35 rooms, science laboratory, library and computer room etc captured the entire school buildings with all infrastructure, furnitures, official records, available cash in locker, cheque books, books of accounts, all worth of Rs.2,71,30,364/- as per audited assets as on 31.03.2014 and Rs.4,00,00,000/- as per audited assets as on 31.3.2015. It is further alleged that the accused no. 1 to 19 also assaulted Manju Devi at School premises. It is further alleged that the accused no. 1 to 19 also assaulted Manju Devi at School premises. It is further alleged that the accused nos. 1 to 19 without consent and necessary permission of the complainant downloaded, copies and extracts of schools installed computer, computer system, computer network including information or data. It is further alleged that the accused no. 20 and its associates accused nos. 1 to 19 had shown forged documents with regard to giving affiliation to school and have cheated so many schools in Jharkhand by receiving Rs.500/- per child. It is further alleged that on 23.07.2015 at about 2. P.M. the accused no. 4 called the complainant at Khirwal Dharmshala, Chaibasa and threatened the compliant. On 09.08.2015 at about 10 A.M. the accused no. 1 to 19 illegally disconnected the water supply and electric connections of the residential quarter of the employed teachers and other staff and misbehaved with female members of the said quarter. It is further alleged that earlier the witness no. 2 Akhileshwar Sinha has filed one application dated 22.06.2015 under section 39 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the accused nos. 20 and 17 and others. The complainant and so many other persons available at place of occurrence got injured by the acts of the accused persons. On the basis of these allegations, the complaint has been filed. 6. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners are governing body of the school namely, Sarswati Shishu Vidya Mandir, Chaibasa. He further submits that since the land in question was donated by Padmawati Jain, lateron the name of the school has been changed as Padmawati Jain Shishu Vidya Mandir, Chaibasa. 6. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners are governing body of the school namely, Sarswati Shishu Vidya Mandir, Chaibasa. He further submits that since the land in question was donated by Padmawati Jain, lateron the name of the school has been changed as Padmawati Jain Shishu Vidya Mandir, Chaibasa. He further submits that pursuant to complaint filed by the complainant the same was sent to the concerned police station under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the learned court for institution of F.I.R. and investigation and after investigation police has submitted chargesheet showing the case civil in nature and no criminality has been involved so far as petitioners are concerned and on the protest petition filed by the O.P. No. 2, learned court has taken cognizance by order dated 09.12.2016 against the petitioners who are members of governing body as well as society which runs Sarswati Vidya Mandir as O.P. No. 2 was principal of Padmawati Jain Shishu Vidya Mandir, Chaibasa whose services however was terminated by the Managing Committee on account of defalcation which had taken place. He further submits that after defalcation came into light, the complainant had caused disappearance of important documents which led to institution of F.I.R against O.P. No.2 in which he is said to be absconding. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that after O.P. No. 2 was given show cause, the service of the O.P. No. 2 was terminated by a reasoned order dated 03.06.2016 which was challenged before the Jharkhand Education Tribunal in which the O.P. No. 2 had also lost. By referring complaint petition, learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that no ingredient of criminality is disclosed in the entire complaint petition. He further submits that the learned Magistrate differing with the Final Form submitted by the police has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under sections 452, 454, 354(B), 387, 406, 420, 467, 468, 120B/34 of the I.P.C. and summoned the accused persons to face trial. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that initiation of said complaint case was malicious prosecution against all the members of the educational society on account of O.P. No. 2 having been terminated from his service. He further submits that in respect of another complaint filed by the wife of O.P. No. 2 another accused has preferred Cr. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that initiation of said complaint case was malicious prosecution against all the members of the educational society on account of O.P. No. 2 having been terminated from his service. He further submits that in respect of another complaint filed by the wife of O.P. No. 2 another accused has preferred Cr. M.P. No. 642 of 2016 that is still pending. 7. Despite appearance, on repeated calls, nobody appeared on behalf of O.P. No. 2. 8. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 fairly submits that in the chargesheet it has been disclosed that the case is civil in nature which is also disclosed in para 14 of the counter-affidavit filed by the State. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as State, the Court has gone through the materials on record. It is an admitted fact that there is dispute with regard to school. O.P. No. 2 has also opened school and the name of the school has been given the same name i.e. Padmawati Jain Vidya Mandir. It appears that due to the name of the school dispute is there that is why police submitted chargesheet showing the case civil in nature. The O.P. No. 2 was dismissed from service by order dated 03.06.2016 and against the said order, the O.P. No. 2 filed appeal before the Tribunal in which he has also lost. Some of the petitioners are members of governing body and are stationed at Patna and Chaibasa. It is very strange how the petitioners came from Patna and Chaibasa and entered into the office of the O.P. No.2 along with members of the governing body and assaulted the O.P. No. 2. After investigation, police has submitted chargesheet disclosing the case civil in nature although, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance looking into the case diary and evidence of witnesses examined by the O.P. No.2. What are the finding to that effect by the learned Court is not disclosed in the cognizance order. It is well settled that even any complaint is filed with an ulterior motive, the High Court is required to exercise its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. In this regard reference may be made to the case of “Vineet Kumar & Others Vs. It is well settled that even any complaint is filed with an ulterior motive, the High Court is required to exercise its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. In this regard reference may be made to the case of “Vineet Kumar & Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another”, reported in (2017) 13 SCC 369 wherein para 41 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “41. Inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the categories as illustratively enumerated by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or harassment. When there are materials to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceeding under Category 7 as enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which is to the following effect: “102. (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.” Above Category 7 is clearly attracted in the facts of the present case. Although, the High Court has noted the judgment of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, but did not advert to the relevant facts of the present case, materials on which final report was submitted by the IO. We, thus, are fully satisfied that the present is a fit case where the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the criminal proceedings.” 10. The direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of “State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal” reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 particularly para 107(2) attracts the facts of the present case. The direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of “State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal” reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 particularly para 107(2) attracts the facts of the present case. The court is satisfied to exercise its power under section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance date 09.12.2016 passed by the learned C.J.M., Chaibasa in connection with G.R. Case No. 538 of 2015, pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Chaibasa, is quashed. 11. So far as civil case in nature is concerned, the Court has not given any finding whether the case is civil in nature or not, that is opened to the O.P. No. 2, if so advised, he will file civil case. 12. This petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.