IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
W.P(Cr.) No. 166 OF 2007
Anil Chandra Biswas Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
-------
CORAM; HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
For the Appellant/Petitioner M/s. P.K.Bhowmick, Sr.Adv., Md. Hatim
For the Respondent/Opp. Party Mr.R.R.Mishra, GP II
------
Dated 11th Novemeber, 2011
Heard counsel for the parties.
The petitioner preferred this writ petition on 6th June, 2007,
for quashing the F.I.R in connection with Lalpur P.S. Case No.40/2007
dated 5th April, 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1249/2007,
Annexure – 16, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi
and also for quashing the entire order dated 28th April, 2007, by virtue of
which warrant of arrest has been ordered to be issued against the writ
petitioner. On 6th February, 2008, notices were issued to respondent
nos.2 to 4 and an interim order was passed that “In the meantime,
processes issued against the petitioner vide order dated 28.4.2007 in
connection with Lalpur Police Station Case No.40 of 2007 (G.R. No.1249
of 2007) shall remain stayed”.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that
it is a case of civil dispute, wherein a civil suit filed by the writ petitioner
is also pending. However, in that suit, stay was refused by the trial court,
appeal for grant stay was also rejected by the first appellate court and
ultimately the application for grant of stay was refused by the High Court
but Hon’ble Supreme Court passed order on 13th October, 2010, in
Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.23767/2008, while dismissing the
leave petition, holding that no ground is made out to interfere with
impugned order with the observation that “Needless to say that if any
construction is made during the pendency of the suit, the same shall be
subject to its result”.
Learned counsel for the writ petitioner relied upon the
decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of State of West
Bengal & Ors. Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors. reported in AIR 1982
SC 949 and State of Haryana & Ors Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported
in AIR 1992 SC 604, wherein law has been laid down as to in what
circumstances even the investigation can not allowed and initiation of the
criminal proceeding itself can be quashed. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the writ petitioner that though in the F.I.R, there may appear
alleged cognizable offence but if they are absurd and on the basis of it, if
they are found to be highly improbable, then in that situation, the F.I.R
can be quashed. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner vehemently
submitted that the writ petitioner is an old person and cannot commit any
offence. It is also submitted that during pendency of civil litigation, the
criminal proceeding, in the facts and circumstances, is liable to be
quashed as in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court, the parties
will be governed by the said decisions and the same be given effect in
the suit filed by the writ petitioner.
Learned counsel for the State vehemently submitted that
though in the present case, the F.I.R was lodged on 5th April, 2007,
chargesheet was also submitted on 30th April, 2007, cognizance taken on
30th May, 2007 and admittedly the court issued arrest warrant even on
28th April, 2007, the petitioner sought the relief for quashing the F.I.R only
without disclosing the fact that the chargesheet has already been filed in
the case before filing of the writ petition and not only this but cognizance
was also taken prior to filing of the writ petition. It is also submitted that
the petitioner, after getting the interim order dated 6th February, 2008,
submitted I.A No.2214/2009 praying therein for quashing of the order of
cognizance. It is further submitted that considering the above conduct of
the writ petitioner suppressing material fact, the writ petition of the
petitioner deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the State further
submitted that it is the admitted case that investigation has already been
completed, F.I.R bears cognizable offence and the decisions cited by the
learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts of the
case.
I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the facts of the case.
One F.I.R referred to above was lodged by J.K.Sharan
alleging that he has a house of two rooms and he kept Munna Kachchap,
Raju Pandey, Pradip Lohar @ Koka Babu and Sonu kumar in one room
and Raju Pandey is living with his family and in another room, other
persons were residing. On 4th April, 2007 at about 6.00 am Raju Pandey
came to the house of the complainant and informed that in the night at
2.30 a.m, Kartik Lohar, Mona Sarkar, Chotu Leheri and two others came
with “Gaita, Ghana and Kodal and Khunti”, forcibly entered into the house
and started abusing and dragged the wife of Raju Pandey outside the
house, they demolished the wall etc and took away the utensils. In the
F.I.R, it has been mentioned that he has reason to believe that the writ
petitioner by criminal conspiracy has given effect to the incident.
In view of the facts stated in the F.I.R, learned counsel for
the petitioner was right in confining his argument to the extent that if the
story set up is highly improbable and unbelievable, then investigation can
be quashed in the light of the decisions referred to above ( State of West
Bengal & Ors. Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors. reported in AIR 1982
SC 949 and State of Haryana & Ors Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported
in AIR 1992 SC 604) because it cannot be said that F.I.R does not allege
committing of cognizable offence. Not only this but even investigation was
completed even before filing of this petition, which fact was suppressed
by the petitioner. So far as improbability in allegations is concerned, only
it has been stated that the writ petitioner is an old person and also is a
disabled person and therefore, he could not have committed the offence
and if he would have any interest to take possession forcefully, he would
have blown the entire structure with the help of bomb. In fact, plea of the
writ petitioner is improbable. The arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is not appealable in any manner, nor the order passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court can be of any help to the writ petitioner for getting
the entire criminal proceeding quashed because even in civil suit,
injunction was refused to the writ petitioner and obviously construction
was permitted on the spot subject to the decision of the suit which also is
of no help to the writ petitioner, rather is against the petitioner. The
contention of the writ petitioner that he had no knowledge of filing of the
chargesheet and taking cognizance before filing of the writ petition cannot
be believed in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Thus, no case is made out for interference by this Court in a
proceeding where chargesheet has been filed, writ petitioner is on bail,
investigation has been completed by the independent agency and three
of the remaining accused already surrendered and have been granted
bail by the trial court. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed.
Copy this order be sent to the trial court. The trial court
shall proceed to conclude the trial expeditiously, since the petitioner is an
old person. The trial court may complete the trial within one year from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(Prakash Tatia.,C.J.)
dey