Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 558 (JHR)

Jyoti Bajaj v. State of Jharkhand

2023-04-24

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2023
JUDGMENT : On 22.06.2022, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 took time. On 02.02.2023, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 took time to file counter affidavit. On 03.03.2023, it was informed that compromise is being made between the parties and the matter was adjourned. Identical prayer was made on 31.03.2023 and the matter was again adjourned. On 17.04.2023, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 took time and the matter was adjourned to be listed on 24.04.2023 and that is how, this matter has been listed today. 2. On repeated calls, nobody has responded on behalf of opposite party no.2 and that is why in absence of opposite party no.2, this matter is being heard on merit. 3. Heard Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned counsel for the State. 4. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 03.07.2006 as well as the order dated 26.08.2008 whereby the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners-accused for dropping the complaint has been disallowed in C-104/2006, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi. 5. Opposite party no.2 has filed the complaint case alleging therein that the complainant is an educated widow lady and she started a children’s art school on oral contract on 12th December 1999 under self-employment scheme after talking to Late Shrimati A. B. Davis, who was the Chief Trustee of the International Library and Cultural Centre at that time. It was further alleged that on every Sunday on the upper floor of the building of the aforesaid institution the complainant started giving training to the children in drawing, painting, photography, crafts, casio, etc., where time to time competitions are also organized and the presence of different visitors made the workshop, seminar, conference all the more encouraging. It was further alleged that from October, 1999 for the premises of upper floor rent of Rs. 100/-per month was being paid to the International Library and Cultural Centre, which was increased from August, 2002 to Rs.200/-per month. In January, 2004 the complainant started holding classes in the library for classical dance, kathak, etc., in the Kritika Art Gallery Hall, for which the rent was separately fixed. In May, 2004 for a small room of the upper floor rent of Rs. In January, 2004 the complainant started holding classes in the library for classical dance, kathak, etc., in the Kritika Art Gallery Hall, for which the rent was separately fixed. In May, 2004 for a small room of the upper floor rent of Rs. 100/-per month was taken which was paid regularly till July, 2005, of which the receipt was given. The complainant kept giving Rs. 300/-rent per month for the premises for which receipt was received and she continued doing work without hindrance. On 24th July, 2005 at 12:00 p.m. the members of the said Trust entered in the premises of the complainant’s right claim without her permission and the accused Nona Kher, Jyoti Bajaj, Mayukh Dharvirnave started making illegal demand of 25% from her income which was supported by other accused and gave abuses and push. Because of not giving the commission the accused persons stopped the class and got the children forcibly evicted with the help of security guards and put lock. It was also alleged that when the complainant protested then all the accused persons gave threatening and disturbed the educational programme and examination. The accused persons were not satisfied with this, so they put their lock on the premises under complainant’s authority where her articles, registers, record, books and money are lying. To protest this the children sat on Dharna at this place, and letter was also given to the SDO Ranchi and he had written letter dated 30th July 2005 to the Police and Deputy Commissioner for maintaining law and order. It was further alleged that on 24th July 2005 the complainant had given a written report to the Officer-in-Charge, Chutia Police Station but no action was taken by Police. The complainant informed all the competent officials in writing but the said authorities did not do anything, and lastly his Excellency, the Governor was informed upon which also no action was taken, nor the complainant, who was tenant, was put into possession. The complainant had earlier filed a case before this Court. The complainant suspects that her articles kept in the said premise might have been removed by the accused, therefore by an additional application the complainant prayed through the competent authority i.e., the Police that a list of articles be called for from which it can be made out as to whether her articles are in the same condition or not. The complainant suspects that her articles kept in the said premise might have been removed by the accused, therefore by an additional application the complainant prayed through the competent authority i.e., the Police that a list of articles be called for from which it can be made out as to whether her articles are in the same condition or not. It was also alleged that the accused persons entered into the complainant's rented premises without permission and insulted her, used improper words and demanded extortion money in the form of commission, therefore the accused persons are responsible for punishment. 6. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that opposite party no.2 had initially filed W.P.(Cr.) No.299 of 2005 posing herself as a Principal of the Arts School. He submits that the said writ petition was dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.08.2005 wherein it has been held that the matter was related to the claim of right of tenancy and in that view of the matter, no relief can be extended under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and liberty was given to opposite party no.2 to avail alternative remedy. He further submits that the said library was earlier known as British Library and subsequently the said library was closed and considering the importance of library, respectable citizen of the city has come forward and made a trust so that fruit of library may be obtained by the citizen of city. In that view of the matter, a trust was created in which respectable person of the city were made trustees. He further submits that apart from education to the children, room was provided by the trust to opposite party no.2 for arts classes. He submits that the library was being used by the students and disturbance was being created in the arts class and the trustee decided to close the class being run by opposite party no.2. He submits that for that complaint case has been filed. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Sahay, learned counsel for the State submits that criminality is made out and that is why the learned court has rightly taken cognizance. 8. He submits that for that complaint case has been filed. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Sahay, learned counsel for the State submits that criminality is made out and that is why the learned court has rightly taken cognizance. 8. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on the record including the contents of the complaint case and finds that admittedly for eviction of the said room, the compliant case has been filed. For the same relief, earlier opposite party no.2 has approached this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No.299 of 2005, which was dismissed considering that the controversy raised in that writ petition can be considered before the appropriate forum and not before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been further disclosed that Title Suit No.13/2006 has been filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, which itself suggests that for civil case, a title suit has already been instituted and for that, the present complaint case has also been filed. There is no doubt that if the criminality is made out, both civil and criminal case can go simultaneously and if the criminality is not made out, to allow the proceedings to continue will amount to abuse of process of law, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal & others; [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]. The Court finds that for a civil wrong, criminal case has been filed. In that view of the matter, the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 03.07.2006 as well as the order dated 26.08.2008, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi are quashed. 9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of. 10. It is made clear that if any civil proceeding is pending, that will be decided on its own merit without prejudiced to this order. 11. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, stands vacated.