ANIL KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This petition has been filed for quashing the order dtd. 1/2/2016 alongwith the entire criminal proceedings of the case so far the petitioner is concerned. The impugned order has been passed by the learned court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 2102 of 2015 whereby cognizance of the offence under Sec. 354(B) of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner and others.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the entire criminal proceedings has submitted that the records of the case will reveal that the case arises out of malicious prosecution. He has submitted that there are repeated cases filed one after another relating to the same incident and the present case has been filed by Dharmshila Devi, wife of Surendra Kumar Rai. The earlier case being Complaint Case No. 111 of 2015 was filed by Surendra Kumar Rai, husband of Dharmshila Devi in which 23 persons were made opposite parties and apart from that, it was also mentioned in the Complaint that there were 100 to 150 unknown accused persons. The learned counsel submits that the Complaint Case No. 111 of 2015 was sent to the concerned police station for investigation by the police and was numbered as Sadar P.S. Case No.91/2015 dtd. 19/9/2015 (G.R. No. 538 of 2015) and has been ultimately quashed by this Court in exercise of power under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. He has further submitted that upon investigation, Final Form was submitted by the police in the said case, but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa vide order dtd. 9/12/2016 had differed with the Final Form and had taken cognizance of the offence under Ss. 452, 454, 354(B), 387, 406, 420, 467, 468, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The criminal case was ultimately quashed by this Hon'ble Court in Cr.M.P. No. 241 of 2017 on 5/4/2022.