IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No.540 of 2005
Prem Sagar Keshri. ............ Petitioner.
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand. ............ Opp. Party.
------
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI
——
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate,
For the State : A.P.P.
------
Reserved on 11.12.2008 Delivered on 18.12.2008
ORDER
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.: In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for
quashing the order dated 28th March, 2005, whereby learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has taken cognizance against
the petitioner for the offences under Sections 409, 420 and 34 of
the Indian Penal Code. He has further prayed for quashing the
order dated 2nd March, 2007, whereby learned Sub Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has rejected the application filed by
the petitioner under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
2. Prosecution case is that the informant as well as other
eight girls, who had been studying at M. M. Public Welfare
School and College, whose names are mentioned in the first
information report, had deposited Rs.3,012/-, each, against
admission fee, registration fee, promotion test fee, forwarding
charge, examination fee form and annual fee of two years. They
were told by the Principal that the admit cards would be
handed over to them in time for appearing in the Intermediate
Examination. But when the complainant and others went to get
their admit cards for appearing in the Intermediate Examination,
admit cards were not issued to them. The victim students were,
thus, prevented from appearing in the examination, which has
adversely affected their future career. It has been alleged that
the Principal of the said school has committed offence of
breach of trust and cheating.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that the entire allegations are false and baseless. The
materials available on record are not sufficient for taking
2 Cr.M.P.No.540 of 2005
cognizance of the offences under Sections 409 and 420 of the
Indian Penal Code, but in spite of the above, charges have
been framed and the petitioner’s application under Section 239
Cr.P.C. has been erroneously rejected.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
considered the facts and material on record as well as the
submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
allegations made in the first information report are wholly false,
baseless and that no offence much less offences under Sections
409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the
petitioner. Learned court below has not properly considered the
points raised before him and has erroneously rejected the
application filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C.
6. Learned counsel referred to and relied on the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana &
Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] and submitted
that where the allegations made in the first information report or
the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused, the same are
liable to be quashed. Such situation comes within the category
of the case wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or
the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised
by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of Court
or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Learned counsel
further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal
& Ors. [(2007)12 SCC 1] and submitted that the power possessed
by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide and the
very plentitude of the power requires great caution in its
exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in
exercise of this power is based on sound principles.
7. In that decision, the Apex Court has further held that the
inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate
3 Cr.M.P.No.540 of 2005
prosecution. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a
prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are
incomplete and hazy, more so, when the evidence has not
been collected and produced before the Court and the issues
involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that
they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient
material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in
regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its
extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any
stage.
8. Learned counsel submitted that in the case of Inder
Mohan Goswami (Supra), the Supreme Court has set aside the
order of the High Court which had refused to quash the criminal
proceeding initiated against the petitioner on the ground that
the dispute, in question, was purely in civil nature and the
Respondent no.3 has already filed a civil suit in the court of Civil
Judge. In that circumstance, initiation of criminal proceeding by
the respondents against the petitioner was held to be an abuse
of process of the Court.
9. Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, opposed the
petitioner’s prayer and submitted that the principles laid down in
the cases of Bhajan Lal (Supra) and Inder Mohan Goswami
(Supra) have got no application to the facts of the instant case.
The ground taken by the petitioner that the allegations made in
the first information report are wholly false and baseless and the
same do not constitute the alleged offences against him is
required to be proved by adducing evidences before the Trial
Court. Learned court below has considered the facts and
materials available on record and has come to the finding that
there are sufficient materials for taking cognizance of the said
offences against the petitioner. This Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot take evidences or
appraise the same. The disputed factual allegations are to be
adjudicated upon and decided by the trial court on the basis of
the evidences brought before the said Court.
4 Cr.M.P.No.540 of 2005
10. After considering the submissions and the facts and
materials on record, I find substance in the submissions made by
learned A.P.P. The petitioner has no case that even if the first
information report is taken at its face value any penal offence is
not constituted. The petitioner has taken defence that the
allegations are false and that he (the Principal) never took
money, causing any harm to the students. Those points raised by
the petitioner are to be scrutinized on the basis of the evidences
brought before the court below after its due appraisal and
consideration. Learned Court below has considered the facts
and grounds taken by the petitioner in his application under
Section 239 Cr.P.C. and after due discussion and consideration
has rejected the same. The order is well discussed and supported
by valid reasons. I find no legal ground for interference with the
impugned order.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the decisions
referred to and relied upon by the petitioner have got no
application to the facts of the present case.
12. I, therefore, find no merit in this petition, which is,
accordingly, dismissed.
(Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.)
Sanjay/NAFR