SUDHIR PRASAD SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the entire criminal proceedings initiated against them in Complaint Case No. 748 of 1996 including the order impugned dated 17.8.2001 passed by Smt. Rita Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad by which discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed and that was affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, IX Dhabad in Cr. Rev. No. 51 of 2001 on 20.8.2005 upholding the order impugned dated 17.8.2001.

(2.) THE prosecution story in short was that a complaint was lodged by the complainant -opposite party No. 2 herein against the petitioners stating inter alia that his father Ram Prit Singh was an employee of M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and was allotted a quarter by the said company. His father retired from the service of the said company on 21st of February, 1978. Although his father had applied for the service of the complainant -opposite party No. 2 on his place but it was not considered and in the meantime his father died on 13.4.1987. On the alleged date of occurrence i. e. 16.10.1996 it was stated that the petitioners along with 5 to 6 unknown persons entered Into the quarter of the complainant -opposite party No. 2 and asked him to vacate the quarter immediately which was opposed and protested by the complainant -opposite party No. 2 stating that unless the dispute between him and the TISCO was settled he was not going to vacate the quarter, moreover, a Title Appeal. No. 60 of 1995 was also pending in the Court of the District Judge, Dhanbad in respect of the said quarter. Such reply of the complainant -opposite party No. 2, provoked the petitioners who used some filthy and abusive language and also manhandled by dragging the complainant -opposite party No. 2 out from his quarter. However on timely interference of the witnesses, the petitioners and other accused persons left the place of occurrence but by extending threat to the complainant -opposite party No. 2. After enquiry into the complaint lodged, cognizance of the offence was taken against the accused persons including the petitioners under Sections 147/448/323/ 504 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly summons were issued. The petitioners then preferred a petition under Section 245 of Code of Criminal Procedure for their discharge which was rejected by the Trial Magistrate observing that there was no provision of discharge in a summons trial case. The petitioner then preferred Cr. Misc. No. 4992 of 1998(R) before the Patna High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for declaring that the cognizance order impugned dated 12.5.1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 748 of 1996 was not maintainable. The Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court having considered the petition and relied upon the decision of K.M. Mathew V/s. State of Kerala, reported in AIR 1992 SC 2206, quashed the order impugned directing the Court below to hear the parties afresh and pass a reasoned order on the petition dated 7.8.1997 filed on behalf of the accused - petitioners.

(3.) THE learned counsel further submitted that Section 147 of IPC in the facts and circumstances cannot be attracted m view of the fact that the complainant in the complaint petition had named only the petitioners but added 2 -3 more persons without disclosing names and their specific attribution to bring the case within the purview of Section 147 of IPC. Similarly, Section 448 of IPC is not attracted as the complainant -opposite party No. 2 in his statement In Court on solemn affirmation had clearly admitted that he came out from his house when he was called out from outside and this fact was corroborated by other two witnesses i.e. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 in course of enquiry and therefore, the allegation that the petitioners dragged the complainant out of his house could not be substantiated. As regards Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there was no specific allegation against any of the petitioners about the nature of abusive language or insulting words used by any of them. The witnesses were silent on such allegation against the petitioners of using insulting or abusive language against the complainant. In the facts and circumstances, the learned counsel submitted that the cognizance of the offence taken under Sections 147/448/504 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners could not be sustained. He asserted that no independent witness was examined on behalf of the complainant in course of enquiry and that the P.W. 1 who was examined, belonged to far away Suburb, popularly known as Sunderpur Basti thus P.W. 1 could be put in the category of chance witness. Similarly, P.W. 2 is the son of the complainant who admitted in his statement in course of enquiry that the petitioners had never visited his quarter earlier and such statement disproved the entire allegation of the complainant.