SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Jhk) 1299

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Ashok Agrawal S/o Late Ruli Ram Agrawal – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. M.P. No. 617 of 2021
Decided On : 13-06-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: A.K. Das.
For the Respondents: S.K. Tiwari, Jitendra Shankar Singh, Randhir Kumar.

IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the essential elements of cheating and dishonest misappropriation must be established to constitute offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

Headnote:

Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Indian Penal Code - Sections 420, 406 and 34 - [SUMMARY OF ACTS AND SECTIONS REFERENCED] - The court discussed the application of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the interpretation of Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It highlighted key legal provisions from the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar and Another and Satish Chandra Ratanlal Shah vs. State of Gujarat and Another, emphasizing the elements of cheating and dishonest misappropriation. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these legal provisions, leading to the quashing of the criminal proceedings.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, as the Managing Director, Directors, and General Manager of a company, were accused of non-payment and criminal intimidation in connection with a business transaction. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the essential elements of cheating and dishonest misappropriation were not established in the case. It concluded that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the court process and quashed the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners.

Issues: The issues revolved around the application of Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and whether the allegations constituted cheating and dishonest misappropriation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of key legal provisions from the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, emphasizing the elements of cheating and dishonest misappropriation. It concluded that the essential elements for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code were not established.

Final Decision: The court quashed the entire criminal proceeding in connection with the case, including the order taking cognizance, in the interest of justice.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Seraikella P.S. Case No. 65 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 544 of 2013 including the order taking cognizance dated 04.01.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella whereby and where under, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, now pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Seraikella.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no. 1 is the Managing Director, petitioner nos.2 and 3 are the Directors and the petitioner no. 4 is the General Manager of the accused no. 1-Company in the name and style of AML Steel and Power Limited. The allegation against the petitioners is that in capacity of Managing Director, Director and General Manager of the accused no. 1-Company, the petitioners used to pass orders, receive materials and execute work in terms of the contract entered into between the complainant and the accused no. 1-Company. It is also alleged that in July, 2007, the petitioner no. 4 along with co-accused and the petitioner no. 1 came to the office of the complainant and requested for supply of iron ore and coal. The same was supplied. Initially, the petitioners made payment against the material supplied but after expiry of some dates, the amount became due and being not paid by the accused persons and gradually, it became a huge amount. The complainant started to demand the outstanding dues and ultimately on 30.08.2010, a joint account was prepared in presence of the petitioner nos. 2 to 4 and the co-accused and it was agreed by the co-accused to pay a sum of Rs. 1,05,78,159/- at the earliest. In the meantime, during the pendency of the dues, further material was supplied to the accused no. 1-Company by the complainant and the total outstanding dues went on to 1,24,45,674/-. There is further allegation that on 25.03.2013, petitioner nos. 3, 1 and 4 along with co-accused persons called upon the complainant to their work and demanded extortion, criminally intimated him by pointing revolver and wrongfully confined him.

4. The complaint filed by the complainant was referred to police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate and consequent upon the same, the FIR was registered.

5. Police after investigation of the case, submitted charge sheet inter-alia against the petitioners for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 420/406/34 of Indian Penal Code only.

6. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella inadvertently, in the order dated 23.05.2017 mentioned that charge sheet has been submitted under Section 387, 420, 406, 504, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and took cognizance of the said offences. Prior to the this petition, some of the petitioners filed two criminal miscellaneous petitions being Cr. M.P. Nos. 678 of 2014 and Cr. M.P. No. 2142 of 2013 in this Court with a prayer for quashing the FIR of the case and during the pendency of the said criminal miscellaneous petitions as the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences vide the said order dated 23.05.2017, the matter was brought to the notice of the coordinate Bench and the coordinate Bench by its common order dated 24.07.2019, in the said two criminal miscellaneous petitions, set aside the order taking cognizance dated 23.05.2017 and remanded the matter back to the learned Chief judicial Magistrate for passing a fresh order on the basis of the materials including the FIR, charge sheet and materials collected during the investigation after due application of mind.

7. Subsequently, vide order dated 04.01.2020, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top