Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 997 (JHR)

Vijay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2023-08-07

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2023
JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Cr. M.P. No. 1008 of 2014 and for opposite party no. 2 in Cr. M.P. No. 178 of 2015, Mr. Ankur Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 178 of 2015 and for opposite party no. 2 in Cr. M.P. No. 1008 of 2014 and Mrs. Vandana Bharti and Mr. Achinto Sen, learned counsel for the State in Cr. M.P. Nos. 1008 of 2014 and 178 of 2015 respectively. 2. Both these petitions are being heard together with the consent of the parties considering that the petitioners and opposite party no. 2 are practicing Advocates at Madhupur in both the cases. 3. Cr. M.P. No. 1008 of 2014 has been filed for quashing the entire complaint case vide P.C.R. Case No. 270/2013, T.R. No. 989/2014 including the order of cognizance dated 28.02.2014, pending in the court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur. 4. P.C.R. Case No. 270/2013 was filed alleging therein that on 21.07.2013 at about 07:30 P.M. while the complainant was in his Chamber cum residence, the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 caught hold the complainant and forcibly dragged into their adjacent room where wife of the complainant was also present and there was hot exchange of words and the complainant further says that due to accused no. 2 he has lost election of Sub Divisional Bar Association, Madhupur. It was also said that accused no. 2 has threatened that he will again implicate the complainant in other false and fabricated case. The accused no. 3 took out a dagger and demanded Rs. 10 Lakhs from the complainant. The accused no. 4 produced some papers for signature and all the accused persons also assaulted with fist and slaps. On hearing hue and cry of the complainant and his wife, the witness nos. 2 to 4 arrived at the spot and tried to rescue the complainant. It was further said that accused nos. 3 and 4 adamantly stated that if the complainant would not put his signature on blank sheets of paper, then he will do away with his life then witness no. 1 assured the accused persons for payment of Rs.10 Lakhs. It was also said that the accused no. 2 unlocked the briefcase and took out Rs. 10,000/- while accused no. 3 and 4 adamantly stated that if the complainant would not put his signature on blank sheets of paper, then he will do away with his life then witness no. 1 assured the accused persons for payment of Rs.10 Lakhs. It was also said that the accused no. 2 unlocked the briefcase and took out Rs. 10,000/- while accused no. 5 crushed the Cell phone of the complainant and on this score, the case was filed on 07.03.2014. 5. Cr. M.P. No. 178 of 2015 has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the complaint case being P.C.R. Case No. 239/2013 including the order of cognizance dated 15.04.2014, pending in the court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur. 6. P.C.R. Case No. 239/2013 was filed alleging therein that an agreement was made on 15.07.2006 between complainant and accused persons in connection with landed property having Jamabandi no. 59/78 at Patalchapti. The value of land was Rs. 3 Lakhs. On that day, Rs. 15,000/- case was delivered to accused Kumar Chatterjee. On 10.08.2006, a bank draft was also prepared of Rs. 49,800/- by complainant in favour of Kumar Chatterjee-accused. Part wise payments were made to the accused Kumar Chatterjee on several dates. Later on dispute developed on the point of money. The complainant delivered Rs. 2 Lakhs to the accused Kumar Chatterjee on his demand. The accused Iqbal assured complainant that land would be registered after getting NOC. On 13.06.2013, the complainant came to have learnt that land was registered to someone else. It has been arraigned that alleged sale deed was executed in connivance with Sunil Kumar without giving information to the complainant. It has been indicated that Sunil Kumar deluded the complainant with having the knowledge that he was party in that agreement done on 15.07.2006. It has been arraigned that accused persons engulfed whole money arisen out of that transaction. The accused persons also threatened the complainant for dire consequence. 7. Cr. M.P. No. 1008 of 2014 was referred to the DLSA, Deoghar considering that the petitioners and opposite party no. 2 are practicing Advocates, however, report of the DLSA is on the record, which suggests that they have not settled the matter and that is why, the matter has been heard on merit. 8. Mr. Jai Shankar Triapthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Cr. 2 are practicing Advocates, however, report of the DLSA is on the record, which suggests that they have not settled the matter and that is why, the matter has been heard on merit. 8. Mr. Jai Shankar Triapthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Cr. M.P. No. 1008 of 2014 submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case and entire allegations are false. He further submits that as a counter blast case, the petitioners have been implicated in the present case. He also submits that the case of the petitioners is covered by many judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Ankur Anand, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 in Cr. M.P. No. 178 of 2015 opposes the prayer and submits that in the complaint, there are disclosure of ingredients of sections of the Indian Penal Code. 10. Mr. Ankur Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 178 of 2015 submits that the petitioner, who happens to be a practicing Advocate at Madhupur, has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the case against the petitioner is not maintainable. He further submits that the case against the petitioner is civil in nature. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. 11. Mrs. Vandana Bharti and Mr. Achinto Sen, learned counsel appearing for the State in both the petitions jointly submit that the learned court has rightly taken cognizance against the petitioners, who happen to be practicing Advocates at Madhupur. 12. The Court has looked into the contents of the complaint petition in Cr. M.P. No. 1008 of 2014 and finds that there is allegation of demanding Rs.10 Lakhs and if they have been failed to pay the same, it has been alleged that threatening was issued to the effect that they will be implicated in false case. In Cr. M.P. No. 178 of 2015, the allegations are made with regard to transfer of land on the basis of an agreement to other persons. When the demand was made for return of the money, the complainant was abused and threatened for dire consequence. There are allegations of using filthy language in the complaint petition. Thus, there are allegations. In Cr. M.P. No. 178 of 2015, the allegations are made with regard to transfer of land on the basis of an agreement to other persons. When the demand was made for return of the money, the complainant was abused and threatened for dire consequence. There are allegations of using filthy language in the complaint petition. Thus, there are allegations. The reason is not coming within the parameters of quashing the entire criminal proceedings in both the cases. At least such type of allegations are not expected from the petitioners, who happen to be practicing Advocates at Madhupur. They are fighting with each other and in spite of endeavour of the Court to settle the matter, they have refused to settle. 13. So far as the argument canvassed by Mr. Ankur Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 178 of 2015 with regard to the case against the petitioner is civil in nature is concerned, it is well settled that if the criminality is made out, both civil and criminal cases can go together. A reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. vs. Biological Ltd. and Others, (2000) 3 SCC 269 . 14. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and analysis, no case of interference is made out. 15. Accordingly, both these petitions are dismissed. 16. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, stands vacated.