Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 59 (JHR)

Abhishek Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2024-01-12

ANANDA SEN

body2024
JUDGMENT : Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents-State. 2. The petitioner in this petition has prayed to quash the FIR in connection with Nagar Untari P.S. Case No.122 of 2023 dated 27.08.2023, registered for the offence under Sections 379, 414 and 34 of IPC. He has also prayed for a direction to release the truck bearing Registration No.BR-02Q-6085, which is registered in the name of the petitioner and is alleged to be involved in the aforesaid occurrence. 3. An FIR was registered as Nagar Untari P.S. Case No.122 of 2023 on 27.08.2023 under Sections 379, 414 and 34 of IPC. As per the said FIR, the informant, who is the Inspector of Police Nagar Untari P.S., received an information on 27.08.2023 in the late evening, that two Tailors bearing Registration Nos.RJ14GJ-3544 and UP32KN-5944 and one Truck bearing Registration No.BR-02Q-6085 (truck of the petitioner) were unloading overloaded coal near Akriti Hotel. On receiving the said information, the police reached to the place of occurrence and from local people they came to know that trucks use to come from U.P. carrying coal beyond the permissible limit and at that location use to dump the excess coal. The police thus came to a prima facie conclusion that the excess coal which was being dump from the aforesaid vehicles is stolen property obtained by illegal mines, thus, the FIR was registered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no offence has made out from perusal of the FIR. The petitioner possesses all documents to show that the coal which was being transported, is through legal valid document. He submits that the vehicle was only parked near the dumped coal and the driver was having lunch in the Akriti Hotel, when police seized the truck. 5. In this application the F.I.R. is sought to be quashed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.M. Datta versus State of Gujarat & Another reported in (2001) 7 SCC 659 at paragraph 9 thereof, while concurring with the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] at paragraph 103 thereof, has held that Criminal proceedings, in the normal course of events ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage, unless the same amounts to an abuse of the process of law. It has been further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there cannot possibly be any guiding factor as to which investigation ought to be scuttled at the initial stages and investigations which ought not to be so scuttled. The first information report needs to be considered and if the answer is found on a perusal thereof which leads to disclosure of an offence even broadly, law courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere. Paragraph 9 of the judgment in the case of S.M. Datta (supra) reads as under: - “9. We respectfully record our concurrence therewith. Criminal proceedings, in the normal course of events ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage, unless the same amounts to an abuse of the process of law. In the normal course of events thus, quashing of a complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. The genuineness of the averments in the FIR cannot possible be gone into and the document shall have to be read as a whole so as to decipher the intent of the maker thereof. It is not a document which requires decision with exactitude, neither is it a document which equires mathematical accuracy and nicety, but the same should be able to communicate or indicative of disclosure of an offence broadly and in the event the said test stands satisfied, the question relating to the quashing of a complaint would not arise. It is in this context, however, one feature ought to be noticed at this juncture that there cannot possibly be any guiding factor as to which investigation ought to be scuttled at the initial stages and investigations which ought not to be so scuttled. The first information report needs to be considered and if the answer is found on a perusal thereof which leads to disclosure of an offence even broadly, law courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere.” 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 at paragraph 103 thereof has held as under: - “103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent power do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 7. Thus from the reading of the above observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is to the effect that if from bare perusal of F.I.R., an offence is made out, criminal proceeding cannot be strangulated at the very initial stage. Further it is also settled that the defence of the petitioner cannot be weighed at this stage. 8. In the instant case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits by way of defence that the petitioner possesses all the documents. Even these documents cannot be looked into by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner has to produce all those documents before the Officer-in-Charge, who will verify the same, and check its authenticity. Be it noted that, the investigation is still in progress and final report has not yet been submitted. 11. From perusal of the FIR, I find that there is an allegation of theft of coal thus an offence is made out, which needs investigation. Thus, I am not inclined to interfere with the FIR and the investigation. 12. So far as release of the vehicle is concerned, the same has been seized in connection with Nagar Untari P.S. Case No.122 of 2023. It will be open to the petitioner to file an appropriate application for release of the vehicle before the Court concerned. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no Section under MMDR Act has been incorporate in the FIR. 14. It will be open to the petitioner to file an appropriate application for release of the vehicle before the Court concerned. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no Section under MMDR Act has been incorporate in the FIR. 14. It is not necessary to register the case under the provision of MMDR Act as Section 379 i.e. the allegation of theft being there is enough in these type of the cases to register an FIR. 15. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands dismissed.