Jharkhand High Court
Anil Kumar Mishra Son Of Shri Madan Mohan … vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 January, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 642 of 2016
Anil Kumar Mishra son of Shri Madan Mohan Mishra, resident of
Niwaranpur, P.O.+ P.S.- Doranda, District- Ranchi
... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Dharmshila Devi wife of Shri Surendra Kumar Rai, resident of
Quarter No. DT 1366, Dam Side Dhurwa, H.E.C. Colony, P.O-
Dhurwa, P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi ... ... Opp. Parties
---
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
—
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate
: Ms. Akriti Shree, Advocate
For the Opp. Party No. 2 : Mr. Shankar Lal Agarwal, Advocate
: Ms. Ayushi, Advocate
—
Reserved on 11th November, 2024 Pronounced on 02nd January, 2025
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 01.02.2016
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
Section 354(B) of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the
petitioner and others.
Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner
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
1
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 dated 19.09.2015 (G.R. No. 538 of 2015)
and has been ultimately quashed by this Court in exercise of power
under Section 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 dated
09.12.2016 had differed with the Final Form and had taken
cognizance of the offence under Sections 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 05.04.2022.
4. Upon perusal of the said order passed in Cr.M.P. No. 241 of 2017, it
is apparent that there were altogether 17 petitioners, but the present
petitioner was not a party. At this, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that after the order was passed in Cr.M.P.
241 of 2017 dated 05.04.2022, the criminal case has already been
dropped.
5. The learned counsel further submits that the present Complainant-
Dharmshila Devi had filed another complaint case which was
Complaint Case No. 426 of 2017 and the entire criminal proceeding of
the said Complaint Case including summoning order dated 18.02.2022
has also been quashed by this Court vide order dated 05.09.2023
passed in Cr.M.P. No.2119 of 2022. However, the petitioner is not a
party in Cr.M.P. No.2119 of 2022.
6. The learned counsel submits that in the meantime, Complaint Case
No. 2102 of 2015 was filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 against the
petitioner and other accused persons.
7. The learned counsel submits that arising out of the same incident with
slightly different version, different cases have been filed. The other
two cases have already been quashed by this Court and the present
case has been filed with a malafide intent and it is a clear case of
2
malicious prosecution for almost similar set of allegations with little
bit of difference. The Opposite Party No. 2 has been filing cases either
herself or through her husband.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that essentially the
dispute is in connection with one school and the Opposite Party No. 2
is acting in a malicious manner and filing criminal cases giving
criminal colour to the dispute. The learned counsel has referred to the
three cases and claimed that they arise out of the same incident. The
learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments: –
(i) (1988) 1 SCC 692 Paragraph 7 (ii) (2002) 3 SCC 89 paragraphs 6 and 8
(iii) 2022 SCC Online Del 245 Paragraphs 13, 14 & 15
(iv) (2020) 13 SCC 435 paragraphs 10 to 16
(v) 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1582 paragraph 23
(vi) 2023 SCC OnLine SC 948
(vii) 2023 SCC Online SC 950
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that aforesaid
judgments deal with general principle of law with regard to quashing
of criminal cases. He has submitted that the celebrated judgment of
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal has been consistently followed in
the case of malicious prosecution. It has been held that in an
appropriate case falling under one or the other category mentioned in
the aforesaid judgement, it is the duty of the High Court to exercise
the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal
proceedings to prevent the abuse to the process of law. He has also
submitted that in a case of malicious prosecution, there is no point
saying that the person should face the trial and get acquittal. He has
also submitted that there is no point saying that the matter has to be
considered at the stage of discharge. The learned counsel has
submitted that on the face of allegations made in the three complaint
petitions, it is apparent that there are almost similar allegations for
which three different cases have been filed one after another only to
harass the petitioner.
3
10. The learned counsel thereafter has referred to the judgment passed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2020) 13 SCC 435
Paragraphs 10 to 16 and submits that the said judgment specifically
deals with a case of malicious prosecution. The learned counsel
further referred to the judgment reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1582 paragraph 23; 2023 SCC OnLine SC 948 and 2023 SCC
Online SC 950 to submit that it is the duty of the court to protect its
citizens from vexatious proceedings. The learned counsel submits that
considering the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, the
entire criminal proceeding including the order on cognizance be set
aside.
Argument on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2
11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 (the
complainant) has submitted that at the stage of challenge to the order
taking cognizance, the allegations made in the complaint and the
inquiry witnesses are required to be taken into consideration. He has
also submitted that so far as the complainant is concerned, the present
case is the only case which has been filed by her in which the
petitioner is an accused person.
12. The learned counsel submits that so far as the complaint case No. 426
of 2017 filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 is concerned, the same was
lodged for the offence under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and
has been quashed in Cr.M.P. No. 2119 of 2022, but in the said case,
the present petitioner was not a party and the said case was not lodged
against the present petitioner.
13. With respect to the other complaint case which was numbered as G.R.
Case No. 538 of 2015, the learned counsel submits that the said case
was quashed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 241 of 2017 in which the
husband of Opposite Party No. 2 was the complainant. In the said
case, the present petitioner was an accused, but he is not a party in
Cr.M.P. 241 of 2017.
14. The learned counsel has further submitted that the complainant of the
present case is required to be cross-examined with respect to the
4
allegations made in the other cases and the allegations made in the
other complaint cases are not identical. He has referred to the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2012) 9
SCC 460 and (1988) 4 SCC 655 paragraph 15.
15. He has submitted that there are serious allegations made against the
petitioner and the complaint case may not be quashed. He has also
submitted that the petitioner had not even appeared before the learned
Court and the matter has remained pending before this Court since
2016.
Rejoinder Argument on behalf of the Petitioner
16. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there
was an interim order in favour of the petitioner and therefore, there
was no occasion for the petitioner to participate in the proceedings. He
submits that the present case is a fit case to quash the entire
proceeding including the order taking cognizance of the case to
prevent the abuse of process of law at the hand of the Opposite Party
No. 2.
Findings of this court.
17. It is not in dispute that Surendra Kumar Rai (the husband of
Dharamshila Devi- the present complainant) was working as Principal
in the school, namely, Padmawati Jain Saraswati Shishu Vidya
Mandir, Chaibasa. The sequence of events based on the materials
placed on record reveal as follows.
18. Initially one criminal case being Sadar P.S. Case No. 82 of 2015 at
Chaibasa for offence under section 341/323/337/34 of IPC was filed
on 10.08.2015 by one Ramavtar Sahu alleging that Surendra Kumar
Rai (the husband of Dharamshila Devi- the present complainant) was
not complying with the transfer order and not handing over the charge
to the new principal and who resisted and attacked the informant of
the case along with other accused persons in the case. The incident
was alleged to have taken place in the school namely, Padmawati Jain
Saraswati Shishu Vidya Mandir , Chaibasa. There was allegation of
defalcation of Rs. 7 lacs by Surendra Kumar Rai (the husband of
5
Dharamshila Devi- the present complainant) and he refused to hand
over charge to the new incumbent namely Krishna Kanta Singh on
08.08.2015 and it was alleged that at his instance numerous persons
entered into the school premises with arms, with Lathi and stones to
assault. A show cause was also said to have been issued to the
husband of the complainant namely Surendra Kumar Rai dated
14.08.2015 as to why he be not dismissed from service while working
as the principal of the aforesaid school at Chaibasa.
19. Vide affidavit dated 22.08.2015 complaint case no. 111 of 2015 was
filed at Chaibasa by Surendra Kumar Rai (the husband of Dharamshila
Devi- the present complainant) with regards to the alleged incident at
Chaibasa on 08.08.2015 and on 09.08.2015 against 19 named accused
persons belonging to Vidya Vikas Samiti, Ranchi including the
petitioner as accused no. 12 in the said case; Vidya Vikas Samiti was
accused no. 20; Sub Divisional Officer Rakesh Kumar Dubey was
accused no. 21, Block Development Officer Mukesh Machhuwa was
accused no. 22 and police officers were made accused as accused no.
23. The allegation, inter alia are in paragraph nos. 3,4,5 , 11and 14 are
quoted as under:-
“3. That on 03.8.2015 at about 3 P.M. the above named accused
persons named in serial no. 1 to 19, all associate of accused no.
20 and few unknown persons forcibly entered into the official
chamber of the complainant situated at premises-Padmawati Jain
Sarswati Shishu Vidya Mandir Organization at Padmawati Jain
Sarswati Shishu Vidya Mandir, Chaibasa, Mohalla-Amla Tola,
Police Station Sadar Chaibasa, District-West Singhbhum by
breaking all security channel and on pistol point in the fear of
instant death, they took blank signature over more than 100 blank
pages as well as signature over few stamp papers and blank
cheques and snatched cash amount of Rs. 15,000/- from the
pocket of the complainant and Rs. 1 lakh from the chamber’s
locker and or by wrongfully restrain him in his chamber to deliver
the same. The complainants somehow saved his life by flee away
from his chamber. Prior to signing over aforesaid blank papers
and cheques and stamp payer they compelled the complainant to
sign over the same failing which be ready to face dire
consequences or they will kidnap the complainant for the purpose
of his murder.
6
4. That while fleeing away from the official chamber of the
complainant on 08.06.2015 at about 3.30 P.M all the accused
persons named under serial no. 1 to 19, the complainant saw that
all the accused named in serial no. 1 to 19 and 100-150 more
unknown persons individually and jointly on provocation of each
other were breaking the lock of (i) Main gate of school building,
(ii) School auditorium / Hall, (iii) 35 nos. class rooms, (iv)
Science laboratory (v) Library and (vi) Computer Room etc. with
the help of iron cutter and or chhenni and hammer and ultimately
broken the entire locks and entered forcibly into said school
building, class rooms, office, laboratory, library etc. and captured
and or grabbed the entire school buildings with all infrastructure,
furniture’s, official records, available cash in locker, cheque
books, books of accounts, all worth Rs. 271,30, 364/- as per
audited assets as on 31. 3.2014 and Rs. 4,00,00,000/- app. as per
un audited assets as on 31.3.2015.
5. That on the same day 8.8.2015 at about 4.30 to 5 PM, the
accused persons under serial no. 1 to 19, physically assaulted the
Manju Devi at school premises by using criminal force with the
intention of disrobing and teared off her sari compelling her to be
naked in a public place as well as same act with Dharmashila
Devi. The accused persons were demanding for sexual favors to
so many women present thereof and no one came forward to stop
this illegal act.
11. That on 9.8.2015 at about 10 am, the accused no. 1 to 19
illegally disconnected the water supply and electric connections of
the residential quarter of the employed teachers and other staff
and misbehaved with female members of the said quarter and
thereafter thrown the entire house hold articles into road caused
damage of more than lakhs rupees and illegal dispossession from
their houses.
14. That the complainant immediately rushed to the local police
station Sadar Chaibasa and superintendent of police for
registration of first information report but all of them declined to
register the same saying that accused no. 21 to 23 were present
at the place of occurance and they have instructed not to register
the first information report.”
The matter was sent for investigation by the police numbered as G.R.
Case No. 538 of 2015 and upon investigation the police submitted
final form stating that the dispute was of civil nature. However, the
concerned Magistrate at Chaibasa differed with the final form and
took cognizance for offence punishable under Sections 452,454,
354(B), 387, 406, 420, 467, 468, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code
7
and summoned the accused persons to face the trial. The summoning
order was challenged by 17 accused persons before the court in Cr.
M.P. No. 241 of 2017 and the order taking cognizance was quashed
keeping it open to the complainant of the case to file civil case if so
advised. In the said case the complainant of the present case and Sanju
Devi were shown as witness. It makes no material difference on
account of the fact that the petitioner was not a petitioner in Cr. M.P.
No. 241 of 2017 as the entire criminal case arising out of G.R. No.
538 of 2015 was quashed by this court by recording a finding that the
dispute was a civil dispute and that the prosecution was a malicious
prosecution for which reference was made to paragraph 102 (7) of the
judgement passed in the case of State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal
reported in 1992 supp (1) SCC 335. The findings in paragraph 9 to 12
of the judgement passed by this court is quoted as under:-
” 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and the arguments advanced by
the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as State, the Court
has gone through the materials on record. It is an admitted fact that
there is dispute with regard to school. O.P. No. 2 has also opened
school and the name of the school has been given the same name
i.e. Padmawati Jain Vidya Mandir. It appears that due to the name
of the school dispute is there that is why police submitted
chargesheet showing the case civil in nature. The O.P. No. 2 was
dismissed from service by order dated 03.06.2016 and against the
said order, the O.P. No. 2 filed appeal before the Tribunal in which
he has also lost. Some of the petitioners are members of governing
body and are stationed at Patna and Chaibasa. It is very strange
how the petitioners came from Patna and Chaibasa and entered
into the office of the O.P. No.2 along with members of the
governing body and assaulted the O.P. No. 2. After investigation,
police has submitted chargesheet disclosing the case civil in nature
although, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance looking into
the case diary and evidence of witnesses examined by the O.P.
No.2. What are the finding to that effect by the learned Court is not
disclosed in the cognizance order. It is well settled that even any
complaint is filed with an ulterior motive, the High Court is
required to exercise its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. In
this regard reference may be made to the case of “Vineet Kumar &
Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another“, reported in (2017)
13 SCC 369 wherein para 41 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
as under:
“41. Inherent power given to the High Court under Section
482 CrPC is with the purpose and object of advancement of
justice. In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused
by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart8
the attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit a
prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the categories as
illustratively enumerated by this Court in State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal. Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which
cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of
operation or harassment. When there are materials to indicate
that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala
fide and proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive, the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceeding
under Category 7 as enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal3, which is to the following effect:
“102. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.” Above Category 7 is clearly attracted in the
facts of the present case. Although, the High Court has noted
the judgment of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, but did not
advert to the relevant facts of the present case, materials on
which final report was submitted by the IO. We, thus, are fully
satisfied that the present is a fit case where the High Court
ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482
CrPC and quashed the criminal proceedings.”
10. The direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the
case of ” State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal” reported in 1992
Supp. (1) SCC 335 particularly para 107(2) attracts the facts of
the present case. The court is satisfied to exercise its power
under section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, entire criminal
proceeding including order taking cognizance date 09.12.2016
passed by the learned C.J.M., Chaibasa in connection with G.R.
Case No. 538 of 2015, pending in the Court of learned C.J.M.,
Chaibasa, is quashed.
11. So far as civil case in nature is concerned, the Court has not
given any finding whether the case is civil in nature or not, that
is opened to the O.P. No. 2, if so advised, he will file civil case.
12. This petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A., if any,
stands disposed of.”
20. This court finds from the allegation made in the complaint case no.
111 of 2015 (G.R. No. 538 of 2015) that allegation regarding
disrobing and tearing off Saree of Manju Devi and Dharamshila Devi
(Complainant of the present case) on 08.08.2015 at Chaibasa was
made in para 5 of the complaint petition but upon investigation the
entire dispute was found to be of civil nature. However, cognizance
was taken by the learned magistrate under various sections of IPC
including 354B IPC but the order taking cognizance and also the
entire criminal case arising out of G.R. No. 538 of 2015 was quashed
9
by this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 241 of 2017 vide order dated
05.04.2022.
21. The complaint case involved in the present case being complaint case
no. 2102 of 2015 was filed just after two days, that is on 24.08.2015 at
Ranchi but this time by the opposite party No. 2 (Dharamshila Devi
w/o Surendra Kumar Rai) against eight named accused persons
including the petitioner and also against 10 to 12 unknown persons.
The place of occurrence has been shown as residential house of the
complainant situated at Dhurwa Ranchi and also residential house of
the complainant and premises of aforesaid school namely, Padmavati
Jain Sarswati Sishu Mandir, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum. The offence
alleged is under section 354(B)/ 388/ 452/ 506/511/120B/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and section 27(i)&(ii) of Arms Act. The date of
occurrence has been disclosed to be 08.08.2015 / 09.08.2015 till date
of filing the complaint case. The complainant as well as her husband
have been shown as the witnesses apart from others. As per the
allegation, the complainant is a house wife and has been residing in
the quarter allocated to her husband in the aforesaid school at
Chaibasa and stayed there till 5 PM on 09.08.2015 and under
compelling circumstances she came to her residential house at Ranchi
and has been residing at Ranchi since 09.08.2015 at about 10 PM.
22. The present complaint is in two parts. The first one is relating to the
alleged incident at Chaibasa on 08.08.2015 at about 3PM to 5PM and
also relating to the incident at Chaibasa on 09.08.2015 at about 11 AM
to 2 PM till the complainant on the same date 09.08.2015 at about
5:10 PM left her house at Chaibasa and rushed to her residential house
at Ranchi by Car. The second part of the alleged incident in the
complaint is relating to the incident at Ranchi on the same date i.e.
09.08.2015 at about 10:30 PM. The allegations with regard to the
incident on 08.08.2015 at 3:00 PM to 5:00 PM till 09.09.2015 at 11
PM is as under :-
“2. That on 8.8.2015 at about 3.00 PM to 5 PM, the accused
persons named under serial no. 1 to 8 and 10-12 unknown10
persons, physically assaulted the complainant at school premises
by using criminal force with the intention of disrobing and made
attempt to tear off her dresses saree and further tired off her
wearer blouse which exposed the private part breast and
compelling her to be naked in a public place. The complainant in
fear of instant miss-happening and feeling shyness got mentally
shocked and could not tell this illegal act inclusive outrage of her
modesty to any one in family on the same day.
3. That on 9.8.2015 at about 11 AM to 2 PM, all the named
accused no. 1 to 8 along with 10-12 unknown persons, forcibly
entered into her residential house in absence of her husband and
started abusing her in filthy languages and they all made demand
for sexual favors and on denial they all on pistol point in the fear
of instant death compelled her to write one application in the
name of Principal of said school and forced to write the text as
“my husband has been transferred to elsewhere and due to he is
out of station I am unable to vacate the allotted residential house
in her husband’s name and I shall vacate the allotted house within
2-3 days. So kindly allow me to take my SCORPIO vehicle with
few dressing cloths to take out”. It is pertinent to mention herein
that the petitioner’s husband has never been transferred by
authorized and legal appointing authority and as such this
application is nothing but forged.
The complainant under compel and in the fear of instant death, left
the allotted residential house on the same day at 5.10 P.M and
rushed to her another residential house situated at Ranchi by said
SCORPIO car with driver.
4. That the complainant reached at 10.30 P.M (night) on the same
day at her another residential house situated at Quarter no. DT –
1366, Dam Side, Dhurwa, Ranchi. On the same at 11.00 P.M
(night) the named accused persons under serial no. 1 to 8 and 10-
12 unknown persons, by chasing her from Chaibasa to Ranchi
came at Ranchi and forcibly entered into her residential house,
armed with deadly weapon and once again tea red off her blouse,
exposed breast and once again made attempt to tear off her
dressed saree with intention to observe her private part and
making MMS to expose the same amongst so many persons but
somehow the complainant flee away from the back door of the
house and saved herself.
5. That after above stated incidence, on each and every day, while
the complainant used to come outside from house for marketing of
vegetables and other daily uses articles, few unknown persons
always threaten her not to register FIR against named accused
persons under serial no. 1 to 8, failing which they will kidnap her
for the purpose of murder.”
11
The named accused persons in the complaint petition are as under:-
1. Rajesh Kumar Gupta
2. Ramavtar Sahu
3. Krishna Kumar Singh
4. Neeraj Lal
5. Onkar Prasad Sinha
6. Ramesh Mani Pathak
7. Diwakar Ghosh
8. Anil Kumar Mishra
23. The complainant in her solemn affirmation stated that the incident is
of 09.08.2015 at 11 PM night that Krishna Kumar Singh (accused No.
3), Ramavtar Sahu (accused No. 2), Rajesh Kumar Gupta (accused
No.1), Neeraj Lal (accused No. 4), Sashi Kanta Dubey [not named in
the complaint] , Diwakar Ghosh (accused No.7), Ramesh Mani Pathak
(accused No.6) and others entered into her house when she was
entering the house and the accused persons had gun in their hand. She
has alleged that they started pulling her Saree and the Saree got untied
and two persons namely Diwakar Ghosh and Neeraj Lal started taking
her photograph. She has further stated in her solemn affirmation that
on 08.08.2015 she was in Chaibasa and Ramavtar Sahu (accused No.
2) and Krishna Kumar Singh (accused No. 3) had taken her signature
on blank page and on that day, they disconnected the electricity
connection and water connection. Somehow, she could save her life
but the accused persons followed the complainant till Ranchi and
entered into her house in Ranchi. In the response to the query of the
court, she has stated that she is not aware if there is any dispute going
on between her and the accused persons.
24. Two enquiry witnesses were examined namely Sanju Devi and
Baleshwar Tiwari. So far as enquiry witness Baleshwar Tiwari is
concerned, he happens to be the neighbour of the complainant at
Ranchi and he has supported the case of the complainant and claimed
to have seen the complainant in half naked condition when she
approached him on 09.08.2015 at 11 P.M. and knocked his door while
screaming. So far as other enquiry witness namely Sanju Devi is
concerned, she is a witness relating to the incident on 08.08.2015 and12
09.08.2015 at Chaibasa. She has stated that on 08.08.2015 a few
people including the petitioner had misbehaved with the complainant
and tried to tear her saree and on 09.08.2015 while she was taking her
child to the hospital, one Neeraj Lal had assaulted her husband and
abused him. She has also stated that on 09.08.2015 the complainant
somehow reached Ranchi and on 10.08.2015 she ranged and told her
that her saree got torn. She has also stated that when she was trying to
save her husband her saree also got torn. She has stated that the
incident of 09.08.2015 had occurred at Chaibasa.
25. The learned Court at Ranchi while taking cognizance recorded that it
transpired that all the accused persons named in the complaint used
criminal force to complainant with intent to disrobe her on 09.08.15
by entering into the room armed with deadly weapon & tried to
outrage her modesty and the learned Court found sufficient material to
proceed against the named accused persons in the complaint for
offence under section 354(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The learned
Court did not find sufficient material to proceed under section
388/452/506/511/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27(i)
& (ii) of Arms Act. The learned Court took cognizance of offence
against all the named accused persons in the complaint vide order
dated 01.02.2016 as under:
“Order dated 01.02.2016
Today case record fix for order on point of issuance of process
against the accused persons. Complainant namely Dharmshila
Devi filed complain case against accused namely Rajesh Kumar
Gupta, Ramavtar Sahu, Krishna Kumar Singh, Neeraj Lal, Onkar
Pd. Sinha, Ramesh Mani Pathak, Diwar Ghose & Anil Kumar
Mishra.
Complaint case in brief is that as dated 09.08.15 all the accused
persons entered into the room armed with deadly weapon & tried
to outrage her modesty. Accused persons tried to unclothen her.
Two accused persons taking photograph of complainant. On dt.
08.08.15 while complainant was at Chaibasa then accused persons
took her signature on blank paper. Accused persons cut light &
water connection of complainant. The accused persons follow up
complainant from Chaibasa to Ranchi.
13
In support of her case, complainant examined herself alongwith
two inquiry witnesses namely Sanju Devi, Baleshwar Tiwari.
Heard both said perused the case record from which transpires
that accused persons named above used criminal force to
complainant with a intend to disrobe her. Therefore, I find
sufficient material to proceed u/s 354(B) of I.P.C. against all the
accused persons named above. I did not find sufficient material to
proceed u/s 388/452/506/511/120(B)/34 of I.P.C. & sec- 27 of (i)
& (ii) of Arms Act.
Complainant directed to file requisite.
O/C hereby directed to issue process against all the accused
persons named in complain petition u/s-354(B) of I.P.C. after
filing requisite by the complainant.”
26. The alleged incident in the complaint commenced in Chaibasa on
08.08.2015 at 3:00 PM to 5:00 PM followed by more incident at
Chaibasa on 09.08.2015 till around 5.00 P.M. and then followed by
incident at Ranchi on 09.09.2015 at 11 PM after the complainant
rushed from Chaibasa to Ranchi and reached Ranchi on 09.09.2015 at
about 10.30 P.M. It was alleged that the accused persons entered her
house at Ranchi and tried to disrobe her.
27. So far as the allegation in the present complaint relating to the
incidents at Chaibasa on 08.08.2015 and 09.08.2015 are concerned,
neither the same have been supported by the complainant in her
solemn affirmation nor the learned court has taken cognizance with
regards to the incidents at Chaibasa. Further, this Court has already
recorded a finding that the allegation was made by Surendra Kumar
Rai (the husband of Dharamshila Devi- the present complainant) in
which the present complainant was a witness in complaint case filed
at Chaibasa being complaint case no. 111 of 2015 (G.R. No. 538 of
2015) regarding disrobing and tearing off Saree of Manju Devi and
Dharamshila Devi (Complainant of the present case) in para 5 of the
complaint and upon investigation by police the dispute was found to
be of civil nature, still cognizance taken under various sections of IPC
including 354B IPC but the order taking cognizance and also the
entire criminal case arising out of G.R. No. 538 of 2015 was quashed
by this court in Cr. M.P. No. 241 of 2017 vide order dated 05.04.2022
14
by holding that the dispute was a civil dispute and was a case of
malicious prosecution. The findings of this court while quashing the
criminal case has been already quoted above.
28. Further, the impugned order reveals that the learned court has taken
cognizance with respect to the alleged incident on 9.8.2015 at around
11.00 pm. which was relatable to the incident at Ranchi as per the
complainant and also the solemn affirmation of the complainant.
29. The learned Court took cognizance with respect to all the named
accused persons of the complaint. This court finds that although the
complainant had named the petitioner in the complaint petition as
accused no.8 but in the solemn affirmation the complainant made
allegations against other named accused persons by specifically taking
their name but neither took the name of the petitioner nor made any
allegation against the petitioner. Instead, the complainant specifically
named the other named accused of the complaint except the petitioner
and had specifically named one Sashi Kanta Dubey who is not a
named accused of the complaint. No allegation was made against the
petitioner in the solemn affirmation of the complainant or in the
deposition of the enquiry witnesses. However, the learned court while
taking cognizance has included all the named accused persons of the
complaint including the petitioner but cognizance has not been taken
against said Sashi Kanta Dubey. The learned court did not find
material to proceed under other alleged offence including 120B/34 of
the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the learned Court failed to take into
consideration that the complainant / enquiry witnesses neither named
the petitioner during enquiry nor alleged any act much less any overt
act against the petitioner in connection with the alleged incident of
attempting to disrobe the complainant on 9.8.2015 at around 11.00
pm. Admittedly, the alleged incident on 9.8.2015 at around 11.00 pm.
which was relatable to the incident at Ranchi. Further, even in the
complaint there is no specific allegation against the petitioner. This
Court is of the considered view that on the face of the allegations
made in the complaint with regards to the incident at Ranchi on
15
09.08.2015, there is no material to proceed as against the petitioner
and accordingly, continuation of criminal case as against the petitioner
would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
30. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, the entire criminal
proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 01.02.2016
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint
Case No. 2102 of 2015 as against the petitioner is quashed.
31. Pending, I.A, if any, is closed.
32. This petition is accordingly allowed.
33. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through
FAX/e-mail.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit/Rakesh/
16