Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 627 (JHR)

Anirudh Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2023-05-04

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Shiv Prasad, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in Sadar (Khelgaon) P.S. Case No.55/2011 (corresponding to G.R. No.890/2011) including the order taking cognizance dated 01.12.2011, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi. 3. The FIR was lodged alleging therein that the informant has alleged that he alongwith his family members had come on his Van as described above to see the games at Khelgaon. It was further alleged that he alongwith his family went inside the stadium at 3:30 PM after parking the vehicle at parking place for which he was given a parking ticket bearing no.3089. When the informant came out of the stadium after seeing the game with his family at 6:00 PM then he found at the parking place that his vehicle was not there. He enquired about his vehicle from the owner of the parking after showing his parking ticket no.3089 and he was advised by the owner that if his vehicle is not there then he should lodge an FIR. It was also alleged that the informant extensively searched for his vehicle, but he did not find it anywhere. The informant further alleged that his vehicle being BR-14E-8386, with Chasis No.236138, Engine no.1601492, Model Van, Colour- White which he had purchased in the month of September, 2010 from Sushila Automobile Pvt. Ltd. as second hand for a consideration price of Rs. 42,000/- has been taken away by the owner of the parking in connivance with his staff. The FIR was registered under sections 406/408, IPC against unknown. 4. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after completion of the investigation submitted its charge-sheet on 28.11.2011. The petitioner was served with a copy of the case diary alongwith the police paper including the copy of an agreement dated 28.01.2011 between the 34th National Games Organization Committee and the Bhootpurva Sainik Kalyan Sangh an enclosures thereto. He further submits that those documents are brought on record as Annexures-3 and 4 of this petition. The petitioner was served with a copy of the case diary alongwith the police paper including the copy of an agreement dated 28.01.2011 between the 34th National Games Organization Committee and the Bhootpurva Sainik Kalyan Sangh an enclosures thereto. He further submits that those documents are brought on record as Annexures-3 and 4 of this petition. He also submits that the allegations levelled in the chargesheet is merely as per an agreement executed between 34th National Games Organization and Sri Anirudh Singh, Secretary, Bhootpurva Sainik Kalyan Sangh dated 28.01.2011 on the ground that the Sangh took responsibility for the loss or theft of vehicles. On the basis of the said alleged fact, the police has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and the learned court has taken cognizance. He also submits that the said Sangh has not been made accused which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the petitioner is the Secretary of the said Society has been made accused. He refers Section 8 of the Act, 1860 and submits that even for civil liability, any coercive measures cannot be taken qua the Secretary of other officer of the Society. He also refers Section 6 of the Act, 1860 and submits that even in case of filing of suit against the Society, for name sake its President, Chairman or Principal Secretary or trustee can be impleaded in representative capacity, that too depending on the rules of the particular society. He submits that the said vehicle was stolen from the parking area, which was meant for parking the vehicle in 34th National Games. He further submits that only on the evidence of family members of the car owner, the police has submitted final form. On these grounds, he submits that entire criminal proceeding is bad in law. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Shiv Prasad, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 refers Clause 17 of the agreement and submits that liability is fastened in case of loss or theft of any vehicle upon the Sangh and in that view of the matter, the case is made out against the petitioner as the vehicle in question was stolen from the parking area meant for 34th National Games. He also submits that charge-sheet has been rightly submitted. 6. Mr. He also submits that charge-sheet has been rightly submitted. 6. Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, learned counsel for the State submits that charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and the learned court has taken cognizance. 7. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that the case was registered against unknown. The petitioner was not named in the FIR. The entire charge-sheet is on the record. The police has submitted charge-sheet considering the statement of family members of the car owner. Apart from that nothing has been disclosed in the charge-sheet. Further it appears that on the basis of the agreement, the petitioner has been made an accused in the charge-sheet. Enforcement of judgment against society is made under Section 8 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. For ready reference, Section 8 of the Act is quoted herein below: “8. Enforcement of judgment against society If a judgment shall be recovered against the person or officer named on behalf of the society, such judgment shall not be put in force against the property, movable or immovable, or against the body of such person or officer, but against the property of the society. The application for execution shall set forth the judgment, the fact of the party against whom it shall have been recovered having sued or having been sued, as the case may be, on behalf of the society only, and shall require to have the judgment enforced against the property of the society.” 8. Looking into the said Section, it transpires that the officer or any person of the Society cannot be enforced, but that cannot be against the property of the society. The agreement is between 34th National Games Organization and the Bhootpurva Sainik Kalyan Sangh and if the criminality is made out, the case was required to be registered or charge-sheet was required to be submitted against Sangh in light of Section 8 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as discussed herein above. Further the case is arising out of an agreement and if there was clause of responsibility, the responsibility cannot be fastened considering that the person who has entered into an agreement and appropriate damages can be claimed therein. 9. Further the case is arising out of an agreement and if there was clause of responsibility, the responsibility cannot be fastened considering that the person who has entered into an agreement and appropriate damages can be claimed therein. 9. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceedings in Sadar (Khelgaon) P.S. Case No.55/2011 (corresponding to G.R. No.890/2011) including the order taking cognizance dated 01.12.2011, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi is quashed. 10. It is made clear that if any civil case is there, that will be decided on its own merit without prejudiced to this order. 11. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of. 12. Pending I.A., if any, is also disposed of.