ARJUN PRASAD SAH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings in P.C.R.Case No.371 of 2013, dtd. 9/7/2018, pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj including the order of cognizance dtd. 26/9/2013 whereby cognizance has been taken by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj under sec. 120(B) of the IPC against the petitioner and order dtd. 15/1/2015 passed in Cr. Revision No.33 of 2014 passed by learned Principal Session Judge, Sahibganj is also under challenge.

(2.) The case was lodged by the O.P.no.2 alleging therein that the complainant Ranjit Singh was posted as clerk cum Oncharge Jailor in Sahibganj Divisional Jail. On 14/12/2010 after his transfer to Godda Jail, he handed over the charge to Sri Suresh Prasad Rajak and took charge at Godda Jail on 15/12/2010. The complaint has stated that on 9/3/2011 Superintendent Godda Jail filed an First Information Report against him making allegation against him that he had gone on leave having locked all the registers of the Office in the residential quarter. The complainant has stated that the police investigated the matter and submitted final report showing mistake of fact. The complainant has stated that on 26/6/2011 Abhishek Srivastava, Incharge Jail Superintendent, Godda Jail directed to break the lock of his residence to find out the register. All the registers found in the residence were mentioned in an inventory. In which it was shown that one register of Sahibganj along with bank statement was recovered from the residence. The complainant has stated that he had handed over charge of the bank statement to Suresh Prasad at Sahibganj Jail. Later on Rafique Alam told him that in May 2011 Jailor of Sahibganj Jail had given him a register that was to be handed over to Sri Arjun Prasad, Jailor of Godda Jail. Rafique Alam went to Godda by a motor cycle of Ashok Kumar Yadav and handed over that register to Arjun Prasad. The complainant has stated that then he instituted an First Information Report at Jirwarwari O.P.Police, in which the police submitted final form.

(3.) Mr. Rohit, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that so far conspiracy is concerned, that is not made out against the petitioner and he refers to sec. 120(A) of the I.P.C and submits that criminal conspiracy is defined there and no case is made out against the petitioner in light of the definition of criminal conspiracy under sec. 120(A) of the IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied in the case of "Vijayan and Rajan etc. v. State of Kerala" reported in AIR 1999 SC 1086. Paragraph no.11 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow: