Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 617 (JHR)

Manoj Kumar Thakur v. State of Jharkhand

2024-06-24

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. Heard Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agarwal, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Arbind Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. The prayer in the petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 25.02.2010 in connection with Complaint Case No.929/2009, pending in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palamau. 3. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the complainant who claims to be a Mallah doing fisheries, was selected in the year 2005-06 for fisheries training and his name was at Sl. No.85 in the list of 126 selected persons. The training camp for 10 days was organized in the Fisheries Office, Daltonganj where the complainant allegedly completed the training successfully for which he was given a certificate. It was further alleged that for the 10 days' training, the trainees were to be given Rs.1,100/- by the Government, but upon completion of the training, the trainees were given only certificates and with regard to training, stipend of Rs.1,100/-, it was conveyed that it would be given later on and the trainees were asked to be in contact with the office by the petitioner, the Fisheries Officer. It was also alleged that even upon being contacted several times with the petitioner and one Ghanshyam Lal (Clerk), the training stipend was not given and resultantly the complainant stopped visiting the office. It was further alleged that on 03.09.2009, the complainant came to know that payment of stipend for training of 2005 was to be received, upon which, the complainant allegedly came to the Fisheries Office, Daltonganj for enquiry where he allegedly came to know that entire money pertaining to the training to the tune of Rs.1,38,600/- has been embezzled by the petitioner and Ghanshyam Lal in connivance with each other by preparing forged document and by showing payment in the forged payment register without paying the same to the trainees. It was further alleged that in the payment register, names of 127 persons had been shown which is more than the selected persons and, therefore, payment register is forged. It was further alleged that in the payment register, names of 127 persons had been shown which is more than the selected persons and, therefore, payment register is forged. It was also alleged that the complainant also allegedly enquired from the other persons who received training with him, namely, Ashok Chaudhary, Munesh Chaudhary and Naresh Chaudhary who allegedly confirmed that they had not received Rs.1,100/- pertaining to training. It was further alleged that the complainant obtained the payment register and select list of persons selected for training in the year 2005-06 from one Raj Kishore Chaudhary, who obtained the same under the Right to Information Act from the Fisheries Office. With the aforesaid allegations, the complainant filed Complaint Case No.929/2009 on 15.09.2009 alleging offences punishable under Section 420, 406, 409, 120B of the Indian Penal Code implicating the petitioner and one Ghanshyam Lal. The petitioner was described as the then Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Daltonganj, Palamau and the other accused as Clerk. The date of cause of action of filing of the complaint was shown as 23.03.2006 and 03.09.2009. 4. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was posted as Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Daltonganj, Palamau. He submits that malafidely the present case has been filed and for the identical allegation, this is the second one. He submits that earlier one complaint case being Complaint Case No.741 of 2008 was filed by one Akhilesh Kumar Choudhary alleging therein that the complainant was required to receive sum of Rs.1,100/- as stipend for receiving training of fisheries, however, the said amount was not paid. He submits that the certificate was found to be forged and certificate was cancelled and for that, Complaint Case No.741 of 2008 was filed, which was challenged before this Court in W.P. (Cr.) No.49 of 2009, which was allowed vide order dated 01.09.2009 and the summon order was quashed. He submits that subsequently the present complaint case has been filed by the complainant, namely, Ramjee Chaudhary alleging same allegation. He submits that Raj Kishore Chaudhary, who was one of the enquiry witness in Complaint Case No.741 of 2008 and he was also projected in the present complaint case as a person who obtained the select list and the so-called forged payment register under the Right to Information Act. He submits that Raj Kishore Chaudhary, who was one of the enquiry witness in Complaint Case No.741 of 2008 and he was also projected in the present complaint case as a person who obtained the select list and the so-called forged payment register under the Right to Information Act. He further submits that maliciously the present complaint case has been filed against the officer, who was discharging his duty in the official capacity and in absence of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., cognizance has been taken. He also submits that the petitioner earlier moved before this Court in Cr.M.P. No.2159 of 2016 challenging the entire criminal proceedings in connection with the present complaint case and the order taking cognizance, bailable warrant of arrest, non-bailable warrant of arrest and proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., which was allowed in part by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.11.2016 and the orders passed for bailable warrant of arrest, non-bailable warrant of arrest and proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were quashed and the learned Magistrate was directed to proceed further in accordance with law. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. 5. Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agarwal, learned counsel for the State submits that the case is arising out of complaint case and the learned Court, looking into solemn affirmation and enquiry witnesses, has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioner. 6. Mr. Arbind Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the learned Court has rightly taken cognizance against the petitioner after perusing solemn affirmation as well as considering enquiry witnesses and, as such, this petition may not be entertained at this stage under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. To find out the facts as to whether earlier case and present case is same or not, only requirement is to go through the contents of earlier case and the present case. Admittedly, in both the cases, Rs.1,100/- is the figure of not receiving by the complainant and it has been alleged in both the cases that in spite of receiving fisheries training, the said amount was not paid. It has come in the order of the Coordinate Bench in W.P.(Cr.) No.49 of 2009 that the certificate was found to be forged one and it was cancelled and in view of that, the prosecution was malafide. It has come in the order of the Coordinate Bench in W.P.(Cr.) No.49 of 2009 that the certificate was found to be forged one and it was cancelled and in view of that, the prosecution was malafide. Further, on the query of the Court, the complainant has pointed out that he is not having any document to suggest that he has received any fisheries training. Thus, it is crystal clear that malafidely the present complaint case was filed that too for the same allegation in second time. It appears that to allow to continue the proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. 8. A reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haji Iqbal @ Bala through S.P.O.A. v. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 946, wherein, in paragraph 15, it has been held as under: “15. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.” 9. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 25.02.2010 in connection with Complaint Case No.929/2009, pending in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palamau are, hereby, quashed. 10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of. 11. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, is vacated.