The Court emphasized the need for sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts to rule out allegations and highlighted the High Court's power to quash a proceeding if it is an abuse of the process of the Court or if the ends of justice require it.

JUDGMENT :

These petitions have been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

2. Both the petitions are arising out of the same F.I.R., that is why, both the petitions have been heard together. So far the ground of age of the petitioner is concerned, that is not in consideration so far Cr.M.P.No.3171 of 2018 is concerned.

3. These petitions have been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Ramgarh P.S.Case No.334/2016 (corresponding to G.R.No.1133/2016) including the order taking cognizance dated 01.12.2017, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh for the offences punishable under sections 147, 427, 379, 384, 34 IPC, pending in the same court.

4. The written report of the informant Sri Shiv Prasad Sahu is the basis of the F.I.R. wherein it is alleged that the informant and one Sanjay Kumar Singh are resident of Ramgarh under Ormanjhi P.S. It was claimed that they (seemingly the informant and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh) purchased a piece of land admeasuring 1.17 acre situated at Village Bankheta, District Ramgarh under Khata No.30, Plot No.1201 from its owner vide registered sale deed no.1449 dated 09.05.2016. The land got mutated in their name vide Rent Fixation Case No.2/2015-16 and jamabandi was also opened in their name after entering their name in Register-II at page no.95/3. It has been further stated that the petitioner had also initiated a proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C against them in the court of Sub Divisional Officer, Ramarh vide Case No.82/2016. [Dr. Harinarayan Chaurvedi Vs. Shiv Prasad Sahu & Ors.] Upon hearing both the parties, the court passed order in their (informant’s) favour by passing order of restraintment against the petitioner.

5. It has been alleged that on the aforesaid piece of land, they got constructed a house and boundary after having spent Rs.6 lakhs, which was got demolished on 2.10.2016 by Dr. Harinarayan Chaturvedi (the petitioner herein) and one Baban Choubey and about 80-100 persons which caused financial loss to them (informant). It has been further alleged that Rs.5 lakh was demanded as extortion and threatening of dire consequences was extended. Besides that, articles kept in the house, one door, one window, 20 bags of cement, 20 kadhahi made of iron, 10 nos. of belcha, 7 nos. of spade and other articles worth Rs.25,000/- was also taken away.

6. Lastly, request was made by the informant to take legal action against the petitioner and other accused persons. Request was also made to ensure their safety in order to protect any mishappening.

7. With the written report, documents enclosed were copy of sale deed (no.1473/1449 dated 9.5.2015); copy of rent fixation (order); copy of rent receipt; copy of order (dated 29.6.2016) passed under section 144 Cr.PC; and copy of Khatian.

8. Accordingly, F.I.R was instituted on 04.10.2016 which was registered as Ramgarh P.S.Case No.334/2016 (corresponding to G.R.No.1133/2016) against (i) Dr. Harinarayan Chaturvedi and (ii) Baban Choubey (the petitioners herein) alleging commission of offences punishable under section 427, 379, 384, 34 IPC.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier one proceeding was initiated under section 144 Cr.PC by the petitioners against the O.P.no.2. He submits that restriction order was passed and due to efflux of time that order has expired as it was valid only for 60 days. He further submits that the charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioners alleging commission of offence punishable under sections 147, 427, 379, 384, 34 IPC. He submits that this is a counter blast case filed against the petitioner in Cr. M.P. No. 1809 of 2018, who at the time of filing of F.I.R was 89 years of age. He further submits that now the petitioner is bed-ridden. He furt