IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Kundan Kumar Sinha – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr.M .P. No. 2385 of 2013
Decided on : 14-03-2023
Delay in Disposal of Case - Quashing of Cognizance Order - Sections 406/420 of the I.P.C. - [Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code] - The court found sufficient reason for the delay in disposal of the case and accepted the explanation. The complaint alleged that the accused obtained a loan in his own name by pledging the complainant's LIC policy. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the cognizance order was well reasoned and no interference was required.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition to quash the order dated 03.06.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, alleging that the accused obtained a loan in his own name by pledging the complainant's LIC policy. The petitioner claimed innocence and argued that the complainant had not taken steps for withdrawal of the LIC policy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was sufficient reason for the delay in disposal of the case and accepted the explanation. It also noted that the cognizance order was well reasoned and no interference was required.
Issues: Delay in disposal of the case, quashing of cognizance order, allegations against the petitioner, validity of the explanation for delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found sufficient reason for the delay in disposal of the case and accepted the explanation. It also found that the cognizance order was well reasoned and no interference was required.
Final Decision: The petition to quash the order was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT :
Pursuant to order dated 01.12.2022, status report and explanation has been submitted by the learned A.C.J.M, Dhanbad which is on record.
2. Looking into the said explanation, the Court finds that sufficient reason has been disclosed for delay in disposal of the case and accordingly, the explanation is accepted by this Court.
3. Status report suggests that the case is pending for appearance of the accused.
4. Heard Mrs. J. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Krishna Muarari learned counsel for the O.P. No. 3.
5. The present petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 03.06.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad whereby cognizance has been taken under sections 406/420 of the I.P.C. and also for quashing of including entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 224 of 2013, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad.
6. The complaint case has been filed alleging therein that the complainant is the employee of BCCL, working at Gopalichuk Colliery, P.B. Area, P.S. Kenduadih, District, Dhanbad. It is alleged that the complainant in the year, 2002 all of sudden fell in urgent need of Rs. 15,000/- as such having come to know about the saving and credit model Co-Operative Society, having its office at Chiragora, Hirapur, Dhanbad vide Reg. No. JKD/02/03/01/13/OTH/2001 approached the said office in relation to his said loan matter.
It is further alleged that the accused posed himself to be the Executive officer of Saving and Credit Model Co-operative Society where after negotiation between the accused and the complainant, the accused agreed to provide loan of Rs. 15,000/- only against security deposit of Rs. 50,000/- and thereby the accused directed the complainant that loan could be given only against deposit in the form of LIC policy, or any other term deposit slip. Being in urgent and desperate need of money the complainant agreed to deposit his LIC policy for taking the said loan.
It is further alleged that on the basis of negotiation between the complainant and the accused, the complainant handed over his original LIC Policy Certificate being numbered as LIC Policy No. 552435864 dated 28.03.1991 of sum assured of Rs. 50,000/- which was due to be matured in the month of March, 2011 and thereafter the accused directed the complainant to put his signature on certain documents including some blank papers. The complainant being an illiterate man could not understand the motive or intention of the accused and being guided by good faith the complainant put his signature accordingly and thereafter the loan of Rs. 15,000/- was granted vide A/C No. T/L 143.
It is further alleged that after sometime in the year, 2002 of part payment of the loan amount was paid by the complainant to the accused for which the accused issued a receipt to the complainant and thereafter the complainant paid the entire remaining amount with interest in the month of March, 2012 when the complainant made the full and final payment with interest to the accused and the complaint asked the accused to issue receipt for the same, at which the accused took false pleas of non availability of receipt and to issue the entire receipt after publication of receipt book.
It is further alleged that in spite of making the full and final payment to the accused in the name of the society, the accused did not return the original LIC certificate of the complainant which was deposited in the custody of the accused at the time of taking loan by the complainant rather on every occasion the accused misbehaved and gave false assurance to the complainant in relation to return of the LIC policy.
It is further alleged that thereafter to the complainant’s utter surprise the complainant came to know that the accused by pledging the said LIC policy of the complainant at the Dhanbad Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, Dhanbad has obtained l
AI
Sufficiency of reason for delay in disposal of the case and validity of the cognizance order.
The key legal principle established is that issues raised in a case must be proved through evidence during trial, and the court cannot quash proceedings at an early stage based on these issues.
A cognizance order can be quashed if the allegations do not establish a prima facie case against the accused, particularly when the accused's involvement is based solely on vicarious liability withou....
Proper evaluation of witness statements and evidence is crucial before taking cognizance in criminal proceedings.
Accepting and giving bribe for the purpose of getting a loan is forbidden, illegal, and not permissible.
A civil dispute may contain elements of criminal wrongdoing, and the existence of a civil remedy does not bar the initiation of criminal proceedings if the allegations suggest potential criminal offe....
The court emphasized the importance of specifying the individual responsible when taking cognizance in criminal proceedings.
The High Court affirmed that a FIR can be quashed only if no offence is disclosed, reinforcing limitations on jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The complaint arising out of an agreement for a civil wrong and the criminal color put into it by filing the complaint case under the SARFAESI Act can be quashed under section 482 Cr.P.C.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.