IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No. 1061 of 2022

------

1. Sumant Jha

2. Dinesh Kumar Manjhi @ Dinesh Manjhi

....

....

….

Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Usha Kumari

....

....

....

Opposite Parties

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Petitioners

: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate

Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate

For the State

: Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P.

For the O.P. No.2

: Mr. Rajiv Sinha, Advocate

Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate

Ms. Shreesha Sinha, Advocate

Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocate

Order No.05 Dated : 17.01.2023

Instant petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings

in connection with Dhanbad SC and ST P.S. Case No.02 of 2022 corresponding to

P.T.N. No.JHDH01-P000139-2022 registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, 419,

420, 406, 504, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of

Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 pending in

the Court of Additional Sessions Judge VI-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST), Dhanbad.

2.

The present petition raises two seminal questions.

Firstly, can a business dispute, between principal and agent for a sum of

Rs.71,27,846/- be permitted to be mutated into a criminal case?

Secondly, whether an offence under SC/ST Act will be made out on the alleged

derogatory statement in a Chamber which is not in public view?

3.

The brief fact of the case is that complainant is a dealer having an agency

petrol pump of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited at Baharagora, East

Singhbhum. Petitioners are the officers of the petroleum company.

4.

As per the prosecution case, the dealership of HPCL was granted by the

petitioner company to the informant for running petrol pump in the year 2009. The

Manager of the Petrol Pump, Ramesh Kumar Gawri, was appointed in the year 2014

to run the petrol pump smoothly. Initially the business was running properly by the

Manager, but later in collusion with petroleum company officials Rs.70 lakh was

misappropriated by him. On 08.09.2021, Sumant Jha, the Deputy General Manager

called husband of opposite party No.2/informant and asked him to clear the

outstanding dues to the Company and threatened to cancel the dealership, if the

outstanding amount was not cleared.

On 06.12.2021, a legal notice was sent by Hindustan petroleum raising a

2

demand of Rs.71,27,846/-and also regarding termination of dealership. After

receiving the notice when the informant went to the regional office on being

summoned by Regional Sale Officer, Dinesh Kumar Manjhi, she was called by her

caste name and insulted in the presence of other staffs.

It is further alleged that the mobile number of the Manager was registered

in the office of the petroleum company, whereas the mobile number of the dealer

should have been registered there.

5.

It is submitted by the learned counsel that instant case is instance of

malicious criminal prosecution being launched to pressurize company from riding

off the outstanding balance against the petitioner. The petitioners are the officers of

the petroleum company and as per the FIR itself, notice had been sent for clearing

the huge outstanding amount, failing which the dealership was to be terminated. In

view of the fact that these petitioners were insisting and demanding the outstanding

amount due to the company which have been framed in the present case.

6.

Second limb of argument is that salutary provision of SC/ST Act, cannot

be used for malicious prosecution. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.

Venkateswaran & Others Versus P. Bakthavatchalam reported in 2022 LiveLaw

(SC) 14 has ruled against such practice and held that private civil dispute between

the parties i