Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 3 (JHR)

Ghanshyam Thakur v. State of Jharkhand

2024-01-02

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2024
JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent-State and the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 28.03.2016, arising out of C.P. Case No. 2204 of 2015, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad. 3. The complaint petition has been filed alleging therein that on 15.07.2015 the complainant was cooking food in the meantime petitioner no. 1 entered into her house and began to abuse her and began to do illegal act with her body and threatened her to do the work as he stated otherwise her husband would be killed. It is alleged that petitioners no. 2 and 4 always abused and exciting to the complainant on the way and for that written information has been given on 16.07.2015 but no action has been taken. Thereafter a written information has been given to S.P. Dhanbad on 01.08.2015 but no action has also been done. When husband and son of complainant came to save her, petitioner nos. 1 and 2 assaulted them. On raising alarm nearby people came then all the petitioners went away by giving threatening to not informed the same to P.S. and on 8.8.2015 the petitioner no. 2 began to ploph the land of 12 decimals with the help of other accused persons under Mouza no. 12, khata no. 36, plot no. 1234 area 30¼ decimals and plot no. 1245 area 19¾ total 50 decimals the complainant. When husband and son of the complainant reached the field and prohibited to plough then petitioner no. 2 abused them in filthy language. It is alleged that the petitioner no. 2 took signature of her husband forcibly in an agreement stating her husband received Rs. 10,000/- and he will transfer the half of the land to petitioner no. 2. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties is with regard to plot bearing nos. 1234 and 1245. He submits that there allegations only against the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 namely Ghanshyam Thakur and Bhagirath Thakur. He submits that however the learned court has taken cognizance against petitioner nos. 3, 4 and 5 under sections 147, 323, 341 and 504 of the IPC. 1234 and 1245. He submits that there allegations only against the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 namely Ghanshyam Thakur and Bhagirath Thakur. He submits that however the learned court has taken cognizance against petitioner nos. 3, 4 and 5 under sections 147, 323, 341 and 504 of the IPC. He submits that so far as the proceeding against the petitioner nos. 3, 4 and 5 are concerned is bad in law. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent State after examining complaint petition as well as solemn affirmation also submits that the allegations are there against the petitioners. 6. Mr. Sanjay Prasad, the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the learned court has rightly taken cognizance. 7. The Court has perused the complaint petition as well as the solemn affirmation and finds that allegations are there against Ghanshyam Thakur and Bhagirath Thakur, the petitioners nos. 1 and 2 and the case is arising out of civil dispute and the learned court has taken cognizance under section 147, 323, 341 and 504 of the I.P.C. So far as the petitioner nos. 3, 4 and 5 are concerned, the ingredients of those sections are not attracted as there is no allegation against these petitioners and it is not disclosed in the order taking cognizance as to what are the materials against the petitioner nos. 3, 4 and 5 which may suggest of taking cognizance against them. It appears that to allow the proceeding to continue further will amount to abuse of process of law. 8. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 28.03.2016, arising out of C.P. Case No. 2204 of 2015, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad are hereby quashed so far petitioner nos. 3, 4 and 5 are concerned. 9. This petition is allowed in the above terms. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not interfered with the complaint case as well as the order taking cognizance so far Ghanshyam Thakur and Bhagirath Thakur, the petitioners nos. 1 and 2 are concerned and the learned court will proceed against them in accordance with law. 11. Interim order stands vacated. 12. Pending petition if any also stands disposed of accordingly.