Bikash Mishra @ Vikash Mishra and Sandeep Mishra vs The State of Jharkhand

D.K. Sinha, J.—The Petitioners Bikash Mishra @ Vikash Mishra and Sandeep Mishra have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the order dated 22 5.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Cr. Appeal No. 9 of 2009 by which finding of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in Misc Case No. 12 of 2008 after conducting an enquiry u/s 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure and holding prima facie offence alleged against the Petitioner under Sections 419/467//468/471/read with 120B/34 Indian Penal Code was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed.

The short fact of the case is that Petarwar P S Case No. 41 of 2008 was registered against the driver, khalasi and owner of the truck No. MP-07B-/653 which was intercepted by the police, found carrying seven tons of coal illegally at the bridge of New market Tenughat. During course of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a requisition for issuance of warrant of arrest against the Petitioner No. 2 Sandeep Mishra who was the owner of the said truck and when the police raided the house, his father i.e. Petitioner No. 1 Bikash Mishra (a) Vikash Mishra disclosed that the truck in question was already sold by his son Sandeep Kumai Mishra to one Nagendra Pandey @ Narendra Pendey. In the meantime, one person surrendered in the court of ACJM Teneghat in the name of Sandeep Kumar Mishra claiming to be an accused in connection with Petarwar P S Case No. 41 of 2008 and he was taken into the judicial custody. Within a few clays an affidavit was filed by the Petitioner No. 1 Bikash Mishra informing the learned ACJM, Tenughat regarding fraud played by some impostor who surrendered in the court in the name of Sandeep Kumar Mishra On such disclosure the Petitioner No. 1 Bikash Mishra was directed by the ACJM to produce his son for ascertaining the identity of original Sandeep Kumai Mishra and accordingly, he was produced. Show cause'' were issued to impostor Sandeep Kumar Mishra who was in judicial custody as also against one Narendra Pandey who had identified the impostor as Sandeep Kumar Mishra in Vakalatnama. Separate notices were issued to the Petitioners also who explained their defence. After holding preliminary enquiry u/s 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure by drawing Misc case No. 12 of 2008 the learned ACJM Tenughat after enqiry and on appreciating the causes shown by the Petitioners and two others by a detailed order found a prima facie case against them to proceed for the offence under Sections 419/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code and it was affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro.

Heard Mr. Atanu Banerjee, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Md. Hatim the learned A.P.P. for the state.

Mr. Atanu Banerjee, the learned Counsel, at the outset submitted that the Petitioner No. 1 Bikash Mishra @ Vikash Mishra when came to learn that an impostor surrendered in the name of his son Sandeep Mishra who was the owner of the truck in question, intercepted by the police, he under bonafide belief filed an affidavit before the ACJM, Barmo at Tenughat stating that some impostors had surrendered in the name of his son Sandeep Mishra and on the direction made by he learned ACJM he immediately produced his son Sandeep Mishra before the court and in that manner it could not have been held that the Petitioner were the parties to the conspiracy hatched by putting one stranger in the dock to appear in the name of Sandeep Mishra on certain allurement of monetary gain instead.

I have carefully gone through the order passed by the learned ACJM on 20.12.2008 in Misc Case No. 12 of 2008 as also the order recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Cr Appeal No. 9 of 2009 who have meticulously dealt with all the points by which a prima facie case for the alleged offence referred to herein before were found against the Petitioners and two others The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners failed to show any illegality or irregularity so as to call for interference in the aforesaid orders and I do not feel necessary to mention the minute details of the orders. This petition therefore, is dismissed being devoid of merit.