IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No. 47 of 2023

Umesh Prasad Gupta, aged about 62 years, son of Late Lakhi Prasad Gupta, resident of Sri Sai Tower, Kilburn

Colony, Hinoo, PO & PS: Doranda, District- Ranchi

...... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Syed Mumtaz Ahmad, son of Late S.M. Hashmatullah,

resident of 4/A, Jani Enclave, Jamia Nagar, Kadru, PO

& PS: Argora, District- Ranchi ….. Opposite Parties

For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Sahani , Adv.

For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha , Spl. PP

For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Anurag Kumar, Adv.

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the order dated 27.07.2022 passed by learned SDJM, Ranchi in connection with Complaint case no. 2429 of 2019 whereby and whereunder, learned Magistrate has prima facie found sufficient materials against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under

Sections 500 of the IPC and issued the summoning order.

3. The brief facts of the case is that in the year 2010, the petitioner

made allegation against the complainant that the complainant who was the contractor was obtaining the signature of the Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer after threatening them and was receiving money without supplying the articles. It is also alleged that the complainant has taken money without doing the work in Officers’ Flat, at Booty More, Governor House and the residence of the Chief Justice. The petitioner is stated to have further alleged

that the complainant used to pressurize the senior officers. The petitioner went on to allege that the complainant is in possession of illegal property and he obtained the signature of the Assistant Engineer while under the influence of intoxication. On the basis of the complaint, the statement of the complainant on Solemn Affirmation and the statement of the Enquiry Witnesses, learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate has passed the summoning order, as already indicated above.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of the court to the copy of the complaint filed by the complainant- Opp. Party no. 2, in the court of learned SDJM, Ranchi vide the complaint case no. 2429 of 2019 that therein, it has categorically been mentioned that the time and date of the occurrence are of 26.02.2010 when the accused made false allegation through his official letter bearing no. 346 dated 26.02.2010. The second time of occurrence, when the allegations was found to be false by the Vigilance Committee on 24.03.2015 and on 29.10.2010 when the petitioner lodged a Complaint Case No. 1176 of 2010 implicating the complainant on false and fabricated allegation and lastly, on 17.08.2017 when the Anticipatory Bail Petition was filed by the complainant vide ABP No. 1474 of 2017. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the cognizance therefore, is hit by Section 468 of CrPC.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the substance of accusation has not yet been explained and the trial is yet to begin in this case.

6. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the undisputed facts remains that the petitioner was not a party to the Anticipatory Bail Petition no. 1474 of 2017 in which, order dated 17.08.2017 was passed, so at best, the occurrence is said to have been taken place either on 26.02.2010 or on 24.03.2015 when the complainant claims the said allegation were found to be false by the Vigilance Committee but in any case, the undisputed fact remains that the complaint was filed in the Court of learned SDJM on 20.05.2019 i.e. beyond a period of three years, hence, the proceeding against the petitioner which amounts to taking cognizance of the offence, is beyond a period three years, though the maximum period of sentence prescribed for the offence puni