Birendra Kumar Mehta vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Fahad Allam, learned counsel for the State.

This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in Koderma P.S. Case No.339/2007, corresponding to G.R. No.486/2007, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma. The prayer is also made for quashing the order dated 18.03.2016 whereby process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued against the petitioner. The said order was challenged by way of filing I.A. No.5096 of 2016, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 17.08.2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no case is made out, so far as this petitioner is concerned. He submits that only allegation is there to the effect that the petitioner was doing the work of Computer Operator in the office of D.T.O. and with his connivance, the fake vehicle has been registered in the office of D.T.O., Koderma. He further submits that no case is made out. Even the petitioner is not chargesheeted as yet. He submits that so far as main accused are concerned, they have already been acquitted by the learned Court. He also submits that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in mechanical way and without application of judicial mind passed the order dated 07.10.2015, whereby, warrant has been issued against the petitioner. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.

Learned counsel for the State resisted the prayer on the ground that in view of interim order passed by this Court, it appears that the charge-sheet has not been submitted.

The allegation of registering fake vehicle in the office of D.T.O is there and the charge-sheet is not still there against the petitioner. However, on the application of the I.O., the learned Court has been pleased to issue process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Looking into the said order, it appears that the learned Court's satisfaction is not recorded in the said order, which is one of the parameters of passing order under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Personal liberty is not required to be taken lightly.

Further, once the charge-sheet is not submitted and cognizance is not taken, in a routine way, the practice is not available to the police. Reference may be made to the judgment passed in the case of Gurjeet Singh Johar v. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2019) SCC OnLine P&H 2606 and also the judgment passed in the case of Arun Kumar Parihar v. State (Govt. of NCTD), reported in MANU/DE/0590/2021.

In view of the above, the Court finds that the orders dated 07.10.2015 and 18.03.2016 are not in accordance with law. Accordingly, the orders dated 07.10.2015 and 18.03.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No.339/2007, corresponding to G.R. No.486/2007 are set aside.

The quashing of the entire criminal proceeding is not made out only on the ground that two of the accused have been acquitted. It is open to the petitioner to pursue the matter before the learned Court if any charge-sheet is there against the petitioner or may take recourse under the law.

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.

Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of.