[ad_1]
Jharkhand High Court
Rahul Agarwal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 April, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:11408
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) No.309 of 2019
-----
1. Rahul Agarwal, S/o Suresh Kumar Agarwal
2. Suresh Kumar Agarwal, S/o Late J.P. Agarwal
3. Smt. Mamta Devi Agarwal, W/o Suresh Kumar Agarwal
All are R/o B/1, B.S. Chakraborty Complex, Contractors' Area, P.O.
& P.S.-Bistupur, Jamshedpur, District-Singhbhum East.
... Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O.
& P.S.-Dhurwa, HEC Area, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand
3. Home Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand,
Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, HEC Area, District-Ranchi,
Jharkhand
4. Director General of Police, Government of Jharkhand, Police
Headquarters, Near Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, HEC
Area, Ditrict-Ranchi, Jharkhand
5. Shri Anoop T. Mathew (IPS, JH 2006), S/o not known, Ex. Sr.
Superintendent of Police, P.O. & P.S.-Jamshedpur, District-East
Singhbhum, Jharkhand and at present Superintendent of Police,
CBI, ACB, Plot No.-C-35A, "G" Block, Bandra Kurla Complex
(BKC), Near MTNL Exchange, P.O. & P.S.-Bandra (East), Mumbai,
Maharashtra-400098
6. Shri Laxman Prasad, S/o not known, Ex-SHO (Officer Incharge),
P.O. & P.S.-Jugsalai, District-Singhbhum East, at present posted
as Inspector, Nowamundi P.S., P.O-Nowamundi, District-
Singhbhum West, Jharkhand
7. Nikita Singhania, W/o Rohit Sarayan, R/o H. No. 69, Ward No. 10,
Sita Bhawan, Ram Tekri Road, Jugsalai, P.O. & P.S.-Jugsalai,
Jamshedpur, District-Singhbhum East, Jharkhand, at present
residing at C/o Rohit Sarayan, Adhunik Hardware Store, Punjabi
More, Near Sharma Sweets, GT Road, Raniganj, P.O. & P.S.
Khandra, District-Paschim Bardhaman, West Bengal
... Respondents.
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
——
For the Petitioners : Mr. A. Allam, Sr. Advocate
: Ms. Sushmita Kumari, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Sanket Khanna, AC to AAG-V
For Resp. No. 6 : Ms. Shilpi, Advocate
For Resp. No. 7 : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate
: Mr. Ayush, Advocate
.........
08 /15.04.2025: The petitioners in this writ petition has prayed that an
F.I.R. being instituted against the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 due to
their behavior in forging signature of petitioner No. 2 in the
notice issued under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C.
1
2025:JHHC:11408
2. Further, a prayer has been made to initiate a departmental
enquiry against the police official as they have forged documents
and arrested the petitioners illegally.
3. Admittedly, the petitioners are accused for committing
offence in connection with Jugsalai P.S. Case No. 77 of 2017
corresponding to G.R. No. 1992 of 2017 for committing offence
punishable under Sections 341, 354, 354A, 504 & 506 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 67 & 67A of the Information
Technology Act.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that in the aforesaid case a
notice under Section 41A was allegedly issued by the
respondents police officials but it was not served upon the
petitioners. Without their being any service, to show service the
person who has issued the notice under Section 41A had forged
the signature of these petitioners. It is submitted that due to the
forgery committed by the respondents, presumption was drawn
that the notice was properly served upon the petitioners and as
the petitioners did not appear before the Police, the petitioners
were arrested thereafter on the ground of non-compliance of the
direction in notice served under Section 41(A) of the Cr.P.C.
5. The petitioners submit that since the notice under Section
41A was nor even issued or served upon the petitioners and they
did not have any knowledge of the above case, the petitioners
could not have been arrested. He submits that the signature
acknowledging the receipt of the notice is not that of the
petitioners and it has been forged by the police official who has
issued the same. On this ground, he submits that he has made a
representation before the D.G.P. but neither action has been
taken and nor the F.I.R. has been lodged.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits
that the notice under Section 41A has been issued which was
duly received by the petitioners and they have put signature on
2
2025:JHHC:11408
the same which the petitioners now is claiming to be forged.
Whether the signature is forged or not cannot be looked into in
this writ petition. Further, he submits that there are alternative
remedy available to the petitioners as per the statue itself which
the petitioners should avail.
7. From the prayer made by the petitioners, I find that he is
praying for a direction upon the respondents to register an F.I.R.
It is his case that in spite of their complaint no action has been
taken. This Court is of the opinion that there is an alternative
remedy available to the petitioners in B.N.S.S., 2023. There are
provisions under 175(3) of B.N.S.S. for appropriate remedy,
which the petitioners must avail. He has rushed to this Court by
invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
without availing remedy under B.N.S.S.
8. Further, whether the signature of the petitioners in the
notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. is forged or not, is a
question of fact which cannot be decided in an application under
Article 226 of the Constitution.
9. The petitioners had referred to a judgment passed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Rini Johar & Anr.
versus State of M.P. and Ors. reported in AIR 2016 SC 2679.
The judgment which the petitioners are referring is not
applicable in this case as in this case the petitioners have not
challenge the validity of their arrest rather, they are praying to
register an F.I.R. against the officials. The validity of the arrest of
the petitioners can only be adjudicated if the Court comes to a
conclusion that the signature of the petitioners in the notice
under Section 41A is forged. As things stands today, there is a
signature of acknowledgement in the notice which suggest that
the notice was received by the petitioners and the State claims
that the same was put by the petitioners themselves.
3
2025:JHHC:11408
10. Since, there is a disputed question of facts which cannot be
adjudicated in this writ petition, I find no merit in this writ
application, the same is dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
Arpit/
4
[ad_2]
Source link